Re: proposal for 9.5: monitoring lock time for slow queries

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal for 9.5: monitoring lock time for slow queries
Date: 2014-08-13 05:22:24
Message-ID: CAFj8pRB-gotm4qZK3fPLO62ot0S3W6GAOEhmQgT6KyBpwPqqxw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2014-08-13 7:19 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Doing a join on pg_stat_activity and pg_locks is not going to help
> > much as you could only get the moment when query has started or its
> > state has changed. Have you thought about the addition of a new column
> > in pg_locks containing the timestamp of the moment a lock has been
> > taken? I am sure that we are concerned about the performance impact
> > that extra calls to gettimeofday could have though...
>
> In theory this could be driven off the same gettimeofday needed to
> start the deadlock_timeout timer. Not sure how messy that'd be.
>

we use it in out custom patch without problems

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-08-13 07:10:38 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2014-08-13 05:21:31 Re: proposal for 9.5: monitoring lock time for slow queries