Re: Adding locks statistics

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Adding locks statistics
Date: 2026-04-07 23:30:36
Message-ID: adWTnO4ulh1WDIGa@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 06:01:08AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> That looks to work, thanks! But I was wondering if this new version is not
> introducing a new race: the injection point is not local anymore so it could be
> that another process reach the new injection point. That said, even if this is
> the case I think we're ok since s2 is using "query_until" so we could say that
> "at least" s2 reached the injection point. The new version does not ensure that
> "only" s2 reached the injection point but I think that's safe.

Yes, the lookups based on pg_stat_activity should be enough, I hope.
From what I can see, the buildfarm is silent this morning for this
test, as much as [1] in the CI, so I'd like to think that we are done
here. Again, I'm hoping so.

[1]: https://cfbot.cputube.org/highlights/all.html
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2026-04-07 23:30:44 Re: Implement waiting for wal lsn replay: reloaded
Previous Message Andreas Karlsson 2026-04-07 23:28:29 Re: updates for handling optional argument in system functions