| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Euler Taveira <euler(dot)taveira(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_activity: make slow/hanging authentication more visible |
| Date: | 2024-09-02 00:10:26 |
| Message-ID: | ZtUCcpf9y7gnHifu@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 04:10:32PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 2024-08-29 Th 4:44 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > As for the other patches, I'll ping Andrew about 0001,
>
>
> Patch 0001 looks sane to me.
So does 0002 to me. I'm not much a fan of the addition of
pgstat_bestart_pre_auth(), which is just a shortcut to set a different
state in the backend entry to tell that it is authenticating. Is
authenticating the term for this state of the process startups,
actually? Could it be more transparent to use a "startup" or
"starting"" state instead that gets also used by pgstat_bestart() in
the case of the patch where !pre_auth?
The addition of the new wait event states in 0004 is a good idea,
indeed, and these can be seen in pg_stat_activity once we get out of
PGSTAT_END_WRITE_ACTIVITY() (err.. Right?).
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2024-09-02 00:16:50 | DOCS - pg_replication_slot . Fix the 'inactive_since' description |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-09-01 23:55:50 | Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure |