| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>, Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Date: | 2016-02-03 03:29:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob90nbThpnX_TsANqhBbZftp8p3f=yeYa5mJzOok3J5vg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So, let's leave adding any additional column, but Alexander has brought up
> a good point about storing the wait_type and actual wait_event
> information into four bytes. Currently I have stored wait_type (aka
> classId)
> in first byte and then two bytes for wait_event (eventId) and remaining
> one-byte can be used in future if required, however Alexandar is proposing
> to
> combine both these (classId and eventId) into two-bytes which sounds
> reasonable to me apart from the fact that it might add operation or two
> extra
> in this path. Do you or anyone else have any preference over this point?
I wouldn't bother tinkering with it at this point. The value isn't
going to be recorded on disk anywhere, so it will be easy to change
the way it's computed in the future if we ever need to do that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-03 03:31:15 | Re: Raising the checkpoint_timeout limit |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-02-03 03:27:20 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |