| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Date: | 2015-06-25 11:35:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Li8YVExAZHMLgoyKT583C8XUO9N3FZmmk3LSvOiV8v+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2015-06-25 16:26:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Won't leaving former contents as it is (until the next thing is being
> > blocked) could give misleading information. Currently we mark 'waiting'
> > as false as soon as Heavy Weight Lock is over, so following that way
> > sounds more appropriate, is there any reason why you want it differently
> > than what we are doing currently?
>
> But we don't do the same for query, so I don't think that says much. I
> think it'd be useful because it gives you a bit more chance to see what
> you blocked on last, even if the time the backend was blocked was very
> short.
>
Sure, that's another way to look at it, if you and or others feels that is
better,
then we can follow that way.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-06-25 11:49:44 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-06-25 11:32:28 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |