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

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>
wrote:
> >
> > 14 нояб. 2015 г., в 10:50, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
написал(а):
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> >> <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > One thing that occurred to me in this context is that if we store the
wait
> > event information in PGPROC, then can we think of providing the info
> > about wait events in a separate view pg_stat_waits (or
pg_stat_wait_info or
> > any other better name) where we can display wait information about
> > all-processes rather than only backends? This will avoid the confusion
> > about breaking the backward compatibility for the current 'waiting'
column
> > in pg_stat_activity.
> >
> > pg_stat_waits can have columns:
> > pid - Process Id
> > wait_class_name - Name of the wait class
> > wait class_event - name of the wait event
> >
> > We can extend it later with the information about timing for wait event.
> >
> > Also, if we follow this approach, I think we don't need to store this
> > information in PgBackendStatus.
> >
> >
> > Sounds like exactly the same that was proposed by Ildus in this thead
[0].
> > Great to be thinking in the same direction. And on the rights of
> > advertisements I’ve somehow described using all those views here [1].
> >
> > [0] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/559D4729.9080704@postgrespro.ru
> > [1] https://simply.name/pg-stat-wait.html
>
> This thread has stalled a bit and is waiting for new patches for some
> time now, hence I have switched it as "returned with feedback" on the
> CF app.
>

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.

[1] -
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KjshwP0dfCQ6CHPnQ_WJQWLEApmfD4z6kUsLtqTuzfzw@mail.gmail.com

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com