| From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Additional LWLOCK_STATS statistics |
| Date: | 2015-12-21 07:50:36 |
| Message-ID: | 5677AF4C.10205@redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/18/2015 01:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Is this just for informational purposes, or is this something you are
> looking to have committed? I originally thought the former, but now
> I'm wondering if I misinterpreted your intent. I have a hard time
> getting excited about committing something that would, unless I'm
> missing something, pretty drastically increase the overhead of running
> with LWLOCK_STATS...
>
Yeah, so unless other people using LWLOCK_STATS find the additional
information of use (w/ the extra overhead), I think we can mark it as
"Returned with feedback" or "Rejected".
Alternative, I can redo the patch requiring an additional #define -
f.ex. LWLOCK_STATS_QUEUE_SIZES
Best regards,
Jesper
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2015-12-21 08:22:45 | Re: Experimental evaluation of PostgreSQL's query optimizer |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2015-12-21 07:48:52 | Re: Threads in PostgreSQL |