From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Background Processes and reporting |
Date: | 2016-03-12 10:59:11 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KVtjAerVXRM6ejFkBThBXDOhVkttAPCKgL9edU0FwxVQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
>
> > Similarly for the wait event stuff - checkpointer, wal writer,
> > background writer are in many cases processes that very often are
> > blocked on locks, IO and such. Thus restricting the facility to
> > database connected processes seems like a loss.
>
> I think one way to address this would be to not only report
> PgBackendStatus type processes in pg_stat_activity. While that'd
> obviously be a compatibility break, I think it'd be an improvement.
>
I think here another point which needs more thoughts is that many of the
pg_stat_activity fields are not relevant for background processes, ofcourse
one can say that we can keep those fields as NULL, but still I think that
indicates it is not the most suitable way to expose such information.
Another way could be to have new view like pg_stat_background_activity with
only relevant fields or try expose via individual views like
pg_stat_bgwriter.
Do you intend to get this done for 9.6 considering an add-on patch for wait
event information displayed in pg_stat_activity?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2016-03-12 11:05:47 | Re: Background Processes and reporting |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2016-03-12 10:56:47 | Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique |