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

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Reiss <thomas(dot)reiss(at)dalibo(dot)com>
wrote:
> >> Here's a small docpatch to fix two typos in the new documentation.
> >
> > Thanks, committed.
>
> I just had a quick look at the wait_event committed, and I got a
> little bit disappointed that we actually do not track latch waits yet,
> which is perhaps not that useful actually as long as an event name is
> not associated to a given latch wait when calling WaitLatch.
>

You are right and few more like I/O wait are also left out from initial
patch intentionally just to get the base functionality in. One of the
reasons I have not kept it in the patch was it needs much more thorough
performance testing (even though theoretically overhead shouldn't be there)
with specific kind of tests.

>
> I am not
> asking for that with this release, this is just for the archive's
> sake, and I don't mind coding that myself anyway if need be.

Thanks, feel free to pickup in next release (or for this release, if
everybody feels strongly to have it in this release) if you don't see any
patch for the same.

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