From: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
Cc: | Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel workers stats in pg_stat_database |
Date: | 2024-11-12 14:05:31 |
Message-ID: | 673360ac.050a0220.28c3a4.e5eb@mx.google.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> FWIW, with the recent commits of the pg_stat_statements patch, you need a
> slight change in the patch I sent on this thread. You'll find a patch
> attached to do that. You need to apply it after a rebase to master.
>
> - if (estate->es_parallelized_workers_planned > 0) {
> + if (estate->es_parallel_workers_to_launch > 0) {
> pgstat_update_parallel_workers_stats(
> - (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallelized_workers_planned,
> - (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallelized_workers_launched);
> + (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallel_workers_to_launch,
> + (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallel_workers_launched);
I was wondering about the weird new column name workers_to_launch when I
read the commit message - AFAICT this has been an internal term so far,
and this is the first time we expose it to users?
I personally find (parallel_)workers_planned/launched clearer from a
user perspective, was it discussed that we need to follow the internal
terms here? If so, I missed that discussion in this thread (and the
other thread that lead to cf54a2c00).
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2024-11-12 14:06:23 | Re: Commit Timestamp and LSN Inversion issue |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-11-12 13:55:37 | Re: Commit Timestamp and LSN Inversion issue |