| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Date: | 2015-06-25 10:58:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20150625105833.GF14672@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-06-25 16:26:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Won't leaving former contents as it is (until the next thing is being
> blocked) could give misleading information. Currently we mark 'waiting'
> as false as soon as Heavy Weight Lock is over, so following that way
> sounds more appropriate, is there any reason why you want it differently
> than what we are doing currently?
But we don't do the same for query, so I don't think that says much. I
think it'd be useful because it gives you a bit more chance to see what
you blocked on last, even if the time the backend was blocked was very
short.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2015-06-25 11:06:11 | Re: Removing SSL renegotiation (Was: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?) |
| Previous Message | Ilya Kosmodemiansky | 2015-06-25 10:58:11 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |