| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: perform_spin_delay() vs wait events |
| Date: | 2022-11-21 20:58:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdvnJ4r7GJoHQn8je1OtaF_bhbC3OrRxEY5-zBeCAEwyUQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:10 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2022-11-20 17:26:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 3:43 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > I couldn't quite decide what wait_event_type to best group this under? In the
> > > attached patch I put it under timeouts, which doesn't seem awful.
> >
> > I think it would be best to make it its own category, like we do with
> > buffer pins.
>
> I was wondering about that too - but decided against it because it would only
> show a single wait event. And wouldn't really describe spinlocks as a whole,
> just the "extreme" delays. If we wanted to report the spin waits more
> granular, we'd presumably have to fit the wait events into the lwlock, buffers
> and some new category where we name individual spinlocks.
+1 for making a group of individual names spin delays.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-21 21:01:00 | Re: perform_spin_delay() vs wait events |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-21 20:58:05 | Re: More efficient build farm animal wakeup? |