| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tatsuya Kawata <kawatatatsuya0913(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Change wait_time column of pg_stat_lock to double precision |
| Date: | 2026-06-29 04:56:11 |
| Message-ID: | akH668FoacFKlLPY@bdtpg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 01:52:54PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 04:27:55AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > postgres=# select read_time from pg_stat_io where read_time > 0;
> > read_time
> > ---------------------
> > 2.2640000000000002
> > 0.08700000000000001
> >
> > Maybe it should be changed to?
>
> pg_stat_io with track_io_timing enabled shows the same thing.
Yeah, I agree, my query above is querying pg_stat_io. I agree that it makes
sense to have both using pg_stat_us_to_ms(), I'm just wondering if pg_stat_us_to_ms()
should be changed as I did propose.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | cca5507 | 2026-06-29 04:58:51 | Re: Handle concurrent drop when doing whole database vacuum |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-06-29 04:52:54 | Re: [PATCH] Change wait_time column of pg_stat_lock to double precision |