Re: reporting reason for certain locks

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: reporting reason for certain locks
Date: 2010-11-25 19:09:42
Message-ID: AANLkTikkd7N_GZbtqSKXRLG-YrwPVOgayTVdUQ9dVH=X@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> No, what I was suggesting was taking the existing function:
>> extern void pgstat_report_waiting(bool waiting);
>> ...and instead doing something like this:
>> extern void pgstat_report_waiting(char *reason);
>> ...and then arrange to pass the reason via the eponymous argument.
>
> The question is how many cycles are we willing to expend on preparing a
> reason string that (in approximately 99.9% of the calls) will not be
> of any use.  It would be much better to avoid doing this and instead
> expend the extra work on the inspection side.

I'd much rather have the information be pulled than pushed, if there's
a way to make that work.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-11-25 19:25:37 Re: [COMMITTERS] How strings are sorted by LC_COLLATE specifically?
Previous Message Radosław Smogura 2010-11-25 18:56:36 Re: [JDBC] JDBC and Binary protocol error, for some statements