Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>, Александр Коротков <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive
Date: 2016-01-18 17:36:21
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoaj+EPoO9qobvFH18F5kJg2tAEXhQ8_-VayWHUr-ZATMw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> The reason for not updating the patch related to this thread is that it is
>> dependent on the work for refactoring the tranches for LWLocks [1]
>> which is now coming towards an end, so I think it is quite reasonable
>> that the patch can be updated for this work during commit fest, so
>> I am moving it to upcoming CF.
>
> Thanks. I think the tranche reworks are mostly done now, so is anyone
> submitting an updated version of this patch?
>
> Also, it would be very good if someone can provide insight on how this
> patch interacts with the other submitted patch for "waiting for
> replication" https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/436/
> Andres seems to think that the other patch is completely independent of
> this one, i.e. the "waiting for replication" column needs to exist
> separately and not as part of the "more descriptive" new 'waiting'
> column.

Yeah, I really don't agree with that. I think that it's much better
to have one column that says what you are waiting for than a bunch of
separate columns that tell you whether you are waiting for individual
things for which you might be waiting. I think this patch, which
introduces the general mechanism, should win: and the other patch
should then be one client of that mechanism.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-01-18 17:38:05 Re: Removing service-related code in pg_ctl for Cygwin
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-01-18 17:35:55 Re: 2016-01 Commitfest