| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2016-03-10 05:18:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JWZ0OsfqobaE-BXcwZ76C1nOGJNoYfvONw7igxw5_5VA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| extend_pg_stat_activity_v14.patch | application/octet-stream | 54.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2016-03-10 05:29:50 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2016-03-10 05:10:38 | Re: Pushing down sorted joins |