| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tracking wait event for latches |
| Date: | 2016-09-25 05:27:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRS-hyr5eTAJ+Nt8WrT-67taChfhvc1yGShzU3eimrvOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Finally, extensions got their own category in this taxonomy, though I
> wonder if it would be better to instead have
> Activity/ExtensionActivity, Client/ExtensionClient,
> Timeout/ExtensionTimeout, and IPC/ExtensionIPC instead of making it a
> separate toplevel category.
I don't think that it is necessary to go up to that level. If you look
at the latest patch, WaitLatch & friends have been extended with two
arguments: classId and eventId, so extensions could just use
WAIT_ACTIVITY as classId and WE_EXTENSION as eventId to do the
equivalent of ExtensionActivity.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2016-09-25 06:09:35 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-09-25 05:25:57 | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |