Re: pg_stat_activity.waiting_start

From: Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_activity.waiting_start
Date: 2017-01-06 04:48:17
Message-ID: CAASwCXf3ViE5MX1r6=AjCA0FUfw1XyDwMCCV9XmU+m9Vmz-y+Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Agreed. No need in adding overhead for short-lived locks because the
> milli-second values are going to be meaningless to users. I would be
> happy if we could find some weasel value for non-heavyweight locks.

To avoid a NULL value for waiting_start, and thanks to non-heavyweight
locks don't exceed order-of-milliseconds, I think it would be
acceptable to just return now() whenever something wants to know
waiting_start i.e. when something selects from pg_stat_activity.

The exact value would only be within orders-of-milliseconds away from
now() anyway, so one can argue it's not that important, as long as the
documentation is clear on that point.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vitaly Burovoy 2017-01-06 04:51:07 Re: macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2017-01-06 04:45:27 Re: Supporting huge pages on Windows