From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal for 9.5: monitoring lock time for slow queries |
Date: | 2014-08-13 05:22:24 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRB-gotm4qZK3fPLO62ot0S3W6GAOEhmQgT6KyBpwPqqxw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2014-08-13 7:19 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Doing a join on pg_stat_activity and pg_locks is not going to help
> > much as you could only get the moment when query has started or its
> > state has changed. Have you thought about the addition of a new column
> > in pg_locks containing the timestamp of the moment a lock has been
> > taken? I am sure that we are concerned about the performance impact
> > that extra calls to gettimeofday could have though...
>
> In theory this could be driven off the same gettimeofday needed to
> start the deadlock_timeout timer. Not sure how messy that'd be.
>
we use it in out custom patch without problems
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-08-13 07:10:38 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-08-13 05:21:31 | Re: proposal for 9.5: monitoring lock time for slow queries |