| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | 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>, "aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com" <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Date: | 2015-09-02 18:45:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobj9P9XsX6tjgnaB24dHtMG2y4JxkiSGjcr2XFg8ZkybQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:43 PM, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Why a new tranche for each of these? And it can't be correct that each
> has the same base?
I complained about the same-base problem before. Apparently, that got ignored.
> I don't really like the tranche model as in the patch right now. I'd
> rather have in a way that we have one tranch for all the individual
> lwlocks, where the tranche points to an array of names alongside the
> tranche's name. And then for the others we just supply the tranche name,
> but leave the name array empty, whereas a name can be generated.
That's an interesting idea.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2015-09-02 18:49:13 | Re: Allow a per-tablespace effective_io_concurrency setting |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-02 18:41:46 | Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding |