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

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>, 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>
Subject: Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive
Date: 2016-03-15 14:41:42
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 15 March 2016 at 14:00, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10 March 2016 at 18:58, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > Thanks for the suggestion. I have updated the patch to include
>>>> > wait_event_type information in the wait_event table.
>>>> I think we should remove "a server process is" from all of these entries.
>>>> Also, I think this kind of thing should be tightened up:
>>>> + <entry>A server process is waiting on any one of the
>>>> commit_timestamp
>>>> + buffer locks to read or write the commit_timestamp page in the
>>>> + pg_commit_ts subdirectory.</entry>
>>>> I'd just write: Waiting to read or write a commit timestamp buffer.
>>> Okay, changed as per suggestion and fixed the morerows issue pointed by
>>> Thom.
>> Committed with some further editing. In particular, the way you
>> determined whether we could safely access the tranche information for
>> any given ID was wrong; please check over what I did and make sure
>> that isn't also wrong.
>> Whew, this was a long process, but we got there. Some initial pgbench
>> testing shows that by far the most common wait event observed on that
>> workload is WALWriteLock, which is pretty interesting: perf -e cs and
>> LWLOCK_STATS let you measure the most *frequent* wait events, but that
>> ignores duration. Sampling pg_stat_activity tells you which things
>> you're spending the most *time* waiting for, which is awfully neat.
> It turns out that I hate the fact that the Wait Event Name column is
> effectively in a random order. If a user sees a message, and goes to
> look up the value in the wait_event description table, they either
> have to search with their browser/PDF viewer, or scan down the list
> looking for the item they're looking for, not knowing how far down it
> will be. The same goes for wait event type.
> I've attached a patch to sort the list by wait event type and then
> wait event name. It also corrects minor SGML indenting issues.

Let's try that again, this time without duplicating a row, and omitting another.


Attachment Content-Type Size
sort_wait_event_doc_table_v2.patch binary/octet-stream 22.3 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Valery Popov 2016-03-15 14:46:33 Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-03-15 14:39:50 Re: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions