| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Euler Taveira <euler(dot)taveira(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_activity: make slow/hanging authentication more visible |
| Date: | 2024-09-10 17:27:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20240910172712.e8.nmisch@google.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 02:29:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You are adding twelve event points with only 5
> new wait names. Couldn't it be better to have a one-one mapping
> instead, adding twelve entries in wait_event_names.txt?
No, I think the patch's level of detail is better. One shouldn't expect the
two ldap_simple_bind_s() calls to have different-enough performance
characteristics to justify exposing that level of detail to the DBA.
ldap_search_s() and InitializeLDAPConnection() differ more, but the DBA mostly
just needs to know the scale of their LDAP responsiveness problem.
(Someday, it might be good to expose the file:line and/or backtrace associated
with a wait, like we do for ereport(). As a way to satisfy rare needs for
more detail, I'd prefer that over giving every pgstat_report_wait_start() a
different name.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-09-10 17:33:36 | Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-09-10 17:24:20 | Re: pg_verifybackup: TAR format backup verification |