On 08/08/2016 07:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 02:06:40AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
>> I hope wait event monitoring will be on by default even if the overhead is not
>> almost zero, because the data needs to be readily available for faster
>> troubleshooting. IMO, the benefit would be worth even 10% overhead. If you
>> disable it by default because of overhead, how can we convince users to enable
>> it in production systems to solve some performance problem? I’m afraid severe
>> users would say “we can’t change any setting that might cause more trouble, so
>> investigate the cause with existing information.”
>
> If you want to know why people are against enabling this monitoring by
> default, above is the reason. What percentage of people do you think
> would be willing to take a 10% performance penalty for monitoring like
> this? I would bet very few, but the argument above doesn't seem to
> address the fact it is a small percentage.
I would argue it is zero. There are definitely users for this feature
but to enable it by default is looking for trouble. *MOST* users do not
need this.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
