Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics, round 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics, round 2
Date
Msg-id 18303.1351003784@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics, round 2  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Regarding Tom's objection to the fundamental issue of providing lwlocks
> data, I agree that maybe it's the wrong layer to be measuring to provide
> data to DBAs, but not providing any data is worse, because then even PG
> developers cannot know what are the real bottlenecks; and it's hard to
> see what other layer we need to be measuring.  Maybe this can serve as a
> foundation to discover useful things to provide in the future.

FWIW, I am not objecting to having the *ability* to collect such data.
I am questioning the usefulness/wisdom of having it turned on by
default, and I am also concerned about whether there is residual
overhead even when it's not turned on.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics, round 2
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review]