Re: Add new wait event to XactLockTableWait

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Kevin K Biju <kevinkbiju(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Add new wait event to XactLockTableWait
Date: 2025-06-08 22:41:04
Message-ID: aEYRgDVS4lflxUyr@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jun 08, 2025 at 10:30:45PM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
> This is more problematic in logical replication scenarios where these
> waits can be very long - for example, when creating a logical
> replication slot on a busy system. Without a specific wait event, it's
> hard to distinguish legitimate wait from other issues.

Gotcha.

> Based on suggestions from Fujii and Kevin [1], the patch introduces
> WAIT_EVENT_XACT_DONE ("Waiting for a transaction to commit or abort")
> and instructs both functions to report this event during their
> pg_usleep() calls With patch applied, when backends are waiting in
> these functions, pg_stat_activity will show what they're waiting for.

+ pgstat_report_wait_start(WAIT_EVENT_XACT_DONE);
[...]
+ pgstat_report_wait_start(WAIT_EVENT_XACT_DONE);

Wouldn't it be better to use two wait events named differently to be
able to make the difference between the two code paths?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2025-06-08 23:05:29 Re: Non-reproducible AIO failure
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2025-06-08 22:16:04 Re: amcheck support for BRIN indexes