| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wait events for disk I/O |
| Date: | 2017-03-08 02:32:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Lj+m_R0ax0Ktog9ZtJtg7KP3XKNwf9hkm4TwN4RfuYvA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Sure, if you think both Writes and Reads at OS level can have some
>> chance of blocking in obscure cases, then we should add a wait event
>> for them.
>
> I think writes have a chance of blocking in cases even in cases that
> are not very obscure at all.
>
Point taken for writes, but I think in general we should have some
criteria based on which we can decide whether to have a wait event for
a particular call. It should not happen that we have tons of wait
events and out of which, only a few are helpful in most of the cases
in real-world scenarios.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-08 02:37:17 | Re: adding an immutable variant of to_date |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-08 02:29:19 | Re: Enabling replication connections by default in pg_hba.conf |