| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay |
| Date: | 2024-12-16 22:02:56 |
| Message-ID: | Z2CjkOdOC0tBCbsu@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:11:23AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> +#define PARALLEL_VACUUM_WORKER_DELAY_REPORT_INTERVAL_NS (NS_PER_S)
>
> Did not changed in v14, but "PARALLEL_VACUUM_REPORT_INTERVAL_NS" could be
> an option as well. I think it keeps the key concepts while being more concise (
> WORKER is somehow implicit in the context).
I think it's important to keep "delay" somewhere in the name, so how about
PARALLEL_VACUUM_DELAY_REPORT_INTERVAL_NS?
> -vacuum_delay_point(void)
> +static void
> +vacuum_delay_point_internal(bool is_analyze)
>
> Updated the comment on top of it accordingly.
Thanks. I think we need to do some additional adjustments to this
commentary since external callers should now use
vacuum/analyze_delay_point().
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-12-16 22:16:11 | Re: Support regular expressions with nondeterministic collations |
| Previous Message | Michael Banck | 2024-12-16 21:57:49 | Re: [PATCH] Add support for displaying database service in psql prompt |