Re: wait event documentation

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: wait event documentation
Date: 2017-04-04 02:19:42
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F6BFC12@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas
> Instead of continuing to repair this every time it gets broken, I propose
> that we break this into one table that lists all the wait_event_type values
> -- LWLock, Lock, BufferPin, Activity, Client, Extension, IPC, Timeout, and
> IO -- and then a second table for each type that has multiple wait events
> listing all of the wait events for that type.
>
> I also propose hoisting this out of section 28.2.3 - Viewing Statistics
> - and making it a new toplevel section of chapter 28. So between the current
> "28.3 Viewing Locks" and the current "28.4 Progress Reporting" we'd add
> a new section "Wait Events" and link to that from 28.2.3. That would also
> give us a place to include any general text that we want to have regarding
> wait events, apart from the tables.

+1
I'm visually impaired and using screen reader software which reads text by Synthetic speech. It was not easy for me to navigate a large table to find the first row of a particular wait event type. With your proposal, I'll be able to move among tables with a single key press ("T" and "Shift + T".) I'd also be happy about separating the section for wait events as you propose, because navigating in a long section is cumbersome.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chapman Flack 2017-04-04 02:22:38 Re: If an extension library is loaded during pg_upgrade, can it tell?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-04-04 02:18:21 Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort