From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Background Processes and reporting |
Date: | 2016-03-11 21:40:53 |
Message-ID: | 20160311214053.ordu3rltnnkxjnlb@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2016-03-11 11:16:32 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> It seems rather worthwhile to think about how we can expand the coverage
> of progress tracking to other types of background processes.
WRT the progress reporting patch, I think we should split (as afaics was
discussed in the thread for a while) off the new part of PgBackendStatus
into it's own structure.
That'd not just allow using this from non-backend processes, but would
also have the advantage that the normal PgBackendStatus' changecount
doesn't advance quite so rapidly. E.g. when reporting progress of a
vacuum, the changecount will probably change at quite a rapid rate, but
that's uninteresting for e.g. pg_stat_activity.
> Similarly for the wait event stuff - checkpointer, wal writer,
> background writer are in many cases processes that very often are
> blocked on locks, IO and such. Thus restricting the facility to
> database connected processes seems like a loss.
I think one way to address this would be to not only report
PgBackendStatus type processes in pg_stat_activity. While that'd
obviously be a compatibility break, I think it'd be an improvement.
Regards,
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-03-11 21:41:19 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-03-11 21:38:08 | Re: Proposal: BSD Authentication support |