From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Session WAL activity |
Date: | 2019-12-06 01:57:14 |
Message-ID: | 20191206015714.GH121835@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 12:23:40PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Concerning keeping PGPROC size as small as possible, I agree that it is
> reasonable argument.
> But even now it is very large (816 bytes) and adding extra 8 bytes will
> increase it on less than 1%.
It does not mean that we should add all kind of things to PGPROC as
that's a structure sensitive enough already. By the way, why do you
assume that 8-byte reads are always safe and atomic in the patch?
> Right now pg_stat_activity also accessing PGPROC to obtain wait event
> information and also not taking any locks.
> So it can wrongly report backend status. But I never heard that somebody
> complains about it.
Please see pgstat.h, close to pgstat_report_wait_start().
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2019-12-06 03:04:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-12-06 01:33:23 | Re: Removal of support for OpenSSL 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 |