Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay
Date: 2024-09-02 05:11:36
Message-ID: ZtVJCIu1MvS214po@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:48:29PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> As it looks like we have a consensus not to wait on [0] (as reducing the number
> of interrupts makes sense on its own), then please find attached v4, a rebase
> version (that also makes clear in the doc that that new field might show slightly
> old values, as mentioned in [1]).

Please find attached v5, a mandatory rebase.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v5-0001-Report-the-total-amount-of-time-that-vacuum-has-b.patch text/x-diff 8.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2024-09-02 05:51:13 Invalid Assert while validating REPLICA IDENTITY?
Previous Message reddy manjunath 2024-09-02 04:55:45 Regarding canditate_restart_lsn in logical decoding.