| From: | Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)upgrade(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_io_histogram |
| Date: | 2026-03-23 21:35:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAMFBP2qFjpJN38y9-QFBoQNfHB7hZxPrz-81TevLj5fKkej71g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 6:06 AM Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 4:08 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
...
> > For measuring particularly stuck things, I've been wondering about
> having a
> > regular timer that starts to collect more information if stuck in a
> place for
> > a while. That would probably end up being lower overhead than constantly
> > measuring... But it would also be a lot more work.
>
> Well if something is really stuck, I think the wait events are covering us
> on that,
> aren't they? One can argue if they carry enough information (for me they
> mostly
> do, but I'm trying to squeeze some more stuff into them in a nearby thread
> [1],
> BTW: it's kind of "blocked" due to that 56-bit relfilenode idea/question,
> any thoughts on that?)
>
One scenario where wait events won't help at all is if you have a backend
stuck somewhere that's not calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(). Or at least that
was the case as of a few years ago; it wasn't an uncommon thing to see in a
very large fleet. My guess is that such a backend also wouldn't be
responding to internal timers though...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-03-23 21:45:38 | Re: Custom oauth validator options |
| Previous Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-03-23 21:21:31 | Re: unclear OAuth error message |