Re: Waits monitoring

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-04 23:44:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I see the need for both current wait information and for cumulative
> > historical detail.
> >
> > I'm willing to wait before reviewing this, but not for more than 1 more
CF.
> >
> > Andres, please decide whether we should punt to next CF now, based upon
> > other developments. Thanks
>
> I think we can do some of the work concurrently - the whole lwlock
> infrastructure piece is rather independent and what currently most of
> the arguments are about. I agree that the actual interface will need to
> be coordinated.
>
> Ildus, could you please review Amit & Robert's patch?
>

Are you talking about patch where I have fixed few issues in Robert's
patch [1] or the original patch [3] written by me.

IIUC, this is somewhat different than what Ildus is doing in his latest
patch [2].

Sorry, but I think there is some confusion about that patch [1] development.
Let me try to summarize what I think has happened and why I feel there is
some confusion. Initially Robert has proposed the idea of having a
column in pg_stat_activity for wait_event on hackers and then I wrote an
initial patch so that we can discuss the same in a more meaningful way
and wanted to extend that patch based on consensus and what any other
patch like Waits monitoring would need from it. In-between Ildus has
proposed
Waits monitoring patch and also started hacking the other pg_stat_activity
patch and that was the starting point of confusion. Now I think that the
current
situation is there's one patch [1] of Robert (with some fixes by myself)
for standardising
LWLock stuff, so that we can build pg_stat_activity patch on top of it and
then
a patch [2] from Ildus for doing something similar but I think it hasn't
used Robert's
patch.

I think the intention of having multiple people develop same patch is to get
the work done faster, but I think here it is causing confusion and I feel
that
is one reason the patch is getting dragged as well. Let me know your
thoughts
about what is the best way to proceed?

[1] -
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KdeC1Tm5ya9gkV85Vtn4qqsRxzKJrU-tu70G_tL1xkFA@mail.gmail.com
[2] -
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3F71DA37-A17B-4961-9908-016E6323E612@postgrespro.ru
[3] -
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1Kt2e6XhViGisR5o1aC9NfO0j2wTb8N0ggD1_JkLdeKdQ@mail.gmail.com

P.S. - This mail is not to point anything wrong with any particular
individual,
rather about the development of a particular patch getting haphazard because
of some confusion. I am not sure that this is the right thread to write
about
it, but as it has been asked here to review the patch in other related
thread,
so I have mentioned my thoughts on the same.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com