From: | frank joerdens <fiskadoro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | dev <dev(at)woome(dot)com> |
Subject: | reason for default PGSTAT_ACTIVITY_SIZE |
Date: | 2010-01-05 17:02:53 |
Message-ID: | 7d10d2df1001050902p639f4046o87473984ef9a3770@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
From my angle, it looks as if the default for PGSTAT_ACTIVITY_SIZE is
too small, or rather that it ought to be configurable at least, so
that longer current_query strings that are shown via
pg_stat_get_backend_activity() in the system view pg_stat_activity
aren't truncated.
The use case is to watch pg_stat_activity when troubleshooting a
busy/struggling live server which is building up a queue of long
running queries, to be able to see which of your SQL is most
problematic, and where it's coming from: We append a code reference as
a comment to all SQL that is sent by the ORM (we use a python web
application development framework, namely Django), in order to figure
out where it originates, which is otherwise tricky with SQL that is
generated by a translation layer - and this code reference is often
cut off because the string is limited.
Is there a good reason to set PGSTAT_ACTIVITY_SIZE at 256 and is my
only option to recompile the server? Is there a practical
limit/drawback to making the variable say 4 or 8 times the default?
I am referring to this post here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2002-05/msg00087.php
and this one:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-novice/2004-02/msg00187.php
according to which recompiling would be the only option, but that was
a few years back so maybe it's a different story now.
Regards,
Frank
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2010-01-05 17:16:22 | Re: Large tables, ORDER BY and sequence/index scans |
Previous Message | sabrina miller | 2010-01-05 17:00:51 | Re: Using table name in column for joining |