From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches) |
Date: | 2016-12-12 16:32:27 |
Message-ID: | 6982.1481560347@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, one of the problems in this patch as committed is that for any
>> process that doesn't show up in pg_stat_activity, there's no way to
>> see the wait event information. That sucks. I think there are
>> basically two ways to fix this:
>>
>> 1. Show all processes that have a PGPROC in pg_stat_activity,
>> including auxiliary processes and whatnot, and use some new field in
>> pg_stat_activity to indicate the process type.
>>
>> 2. Add a second view, say pg_stat_system_activity, to show the
>> processes that don't appear in pg_stat_activity. A bunch of columns
>> could likely be omitted, but there would be some duplication, too.
>>
>> Preferences?
> I vote 1.
If we go with #2, there would immediately be a need for a union view,
which would end up being exactly the same thing as the expanded display
proposed in #1. Seems like the hard way, so I agree with Alvaro.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-12-12 16:33:01 | Nested Wait Events? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-12-12 16:26:32 | Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches) |