Re: Parallel workers stats in pg_stat_database

From: Benoit Lobréau <benoit(dot)lobreau(at)dalibo(dot)com>
To: Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel workers stats in pg_stat_database
Date: 2024-11-12 14:56:11
Message-ID: c58d805e-f55f-4f4f-a83a-25564400274d@dalibo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/12/24 15:05, Michael Banck wrote:
> I was wondering about the weird new column name workers_to_launch when I
> read the commit message - AFAICT this has been an internal term so far,
> and this is the first time we expose it to users?
>
> I personally find (parallel_)workers_planned/launched clearer from a
> user perspective, was it discussed that we need to follow the internal
> terms here? If so, I missed that discussion in this thread (and the
> other thread that lead to cf54a2c00).
>
>
> Michael

I initiallly called it like that but changed it to mirror the column
name added in pg_stat_statements for coherence sake. I prefer "planned"
but english is clearly not my strong suit and I assumed it meant that
the number of worker planned could change before execution. I just
checked in parallel.c and I don't think it's the case, could it be done
elsewhere ?

--
Benoit Lobréau
Consultant
http://dalibo.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2024-11-12 14:59:44 Re: [PoC] XMLCast (SQL/XML X025)
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2024-11-12 14:45:07 Re: Commit Timestamp and LSN Inversion issue