From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock? |
Date: | 2014-04-14 14:45:45 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+WxypGvdDLJ_YMu94ne81vgh5YEB8i441Pn2_mDowb-Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 April 2014 16:44, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-04-12 17:40:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > VACUUM sometimes waits synchronously for a cleanup lock on a heap
>> > page. Sometimes for a long time. Without reporting it externally.
>> > Rather confusing ;).
>> >
>> > Since we only take cleanup locks around vacuum, how about we report at
>> > least in pgstat that we're waiting? At the moment, there's really no way
>> > to know if that's what's happening.
>>
>> That seems like a pretty good idea to me.
>
> What I am not sure about is how... It's trivial to set
> pg_stat_activity.waiting = true, but without a corresponding description
> what the backend is waiting for it's not exactly obvious what's
> happening. I think that's better than nothing, but maybe somebody has a
> glorious better idea.
pg_stat_activity.waiting = true
can be done in 9.4 easily enough. Any objections to doing this?
Easy to set the ps message also
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-14 14:50:05 | Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-14 14:40:49 | Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index |