| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add wait event for CommitDelay |
| Date: | 2025-12-05 22:19:24 |
| Message-ID: | aTNabFGvv_n73Yhq@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 10:15:19AM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I am not sure how widely used this GUC is, but from the quick test that I
> did using pgench TPC-B workload with 50 clients, it seems useful
> since a DBA can set commit_delay too high and you will easily observe
> a single backend constantly in this delay which will impact tps.
> It's good to show this clearly as a wait event.
I have never used it myself, but I can see why it could be useful for
monitoring here. No objections to this addition here.
> As far as the patch goes, It makes sense to put this under "WaitEventTimeout",
> but it should be placed after CHECKPOINT_WRITE_DELAY in
> alphabetical order, and the description could be improved a bit.
> How about? "Waiting for the commit delay before WAL flush."
Yes, your description is more useful than what the patch is proposing.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-12-05 23:14:33 | Re: Making jsonb_agg() faster |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2025-12-05 21:39:49 | Re: IPC/MultixactCreation on the Standby server |