Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On 4 March 2016 at 13:41, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I think the wait event types should be documented - and the wait
>>>> > events too, perhaps.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> As discussed upthread, I have added documentation for all the possible
>>>> wait events and an example. Some of the LWLocks like AsyncQueueLock and
>>>> AsyncCtlLock are used for quite similar purpose, so I have kept there
>>>> explanation as same.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think it worth grouping rows in "wait_event Description" table by
>>> wait event type?
>>
>>
>> They are already grouped (implicitly), do you mean to say that we should
>> add wait event type name as well in that table?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> If yes, then the only slight worry is that there will lot of repetition in
>> wait_event_type column, otherwise it is okay.
>
>
> There is morerows attribute of entry tag in Docbook SGML, it behaves like
> rowspan in HTML.

+1

Yes, we do this elsewhere in the docs. And it is difficult to look
through the wait event names at the moment.

I'm also not keen on all the "A server process is waiting" all the way
down the list.

Thom