From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches) |
Date: | 2016-12-12 16:34:47 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwanA21oTVct27LHC_RJBgxLFRbanyhH5fGug3+ti83uWQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So, one of the problems in this patch as committed is that for any
> process that doesn't show up in pg_stat_activity, there's no way to
> see the wait event information. That sucks. I think there are
> basically two ways to fix this:
>
> 1. Show all processes that have a PGPROC in pg_stat_activity,
> including auxiliary processes and whatnot, and use some new field in
> pg_stat_activity to indicate the process type.
>
> 2. Add a second view, say pg_stat_system_activity, to show the
> processes that don't appear in pg_stat_activity. A bunch of columns
> could likely be omitted, but there would be some duplication, too.
>
> Preferences?
>
>
I'm inclined toward option 2.
A view over both that involves just the shared columns would give you the
benefits from option 1.
Question: is there a parent-child relationship involved here? Given a
record in today's pg_stat_activity is it useful/possible to link in all of
the pg_stat_system_activity process that are working to fulfill the
client-initiated task?
Even with "system" we'd probably want to distinguish between background
workers and true system maintenance processes. Or am I mis-interpreting
the scope of this feature?
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-12-12 16:45:00 | Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-12-12 16:33:47 | Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches) |