On 5/20/24 5:34 AM, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 05:10:10PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>> On 5/16/24 1:15 AM, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:45:35PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Attached is a copy of the PostgreSQL 17 Beta 1 release announcement draft.
>>>
>>> Thanks for working on it!
>>>
>>> I've one comment:
>>>
>>>> PostgreSQL 17 also introduces a new view,
[`pg_wait_events`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/view-pg-wait-events.html),which provides descriptions about wait
eventsand can be combined with `pg_stat_activity` to give more insight into an operation.
>>>
>>> Instead of "to give more insight into an operation", what about "to give more
>>> insight about what a session is waiting for (should it be active)"?
>>
>> I put:
>>
>> "to give more in insight into why a session is blocked."
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>> Does that work?
>>
>
> I think using "waiting" is better (as the view is "pg_wait_events" and the
> join with pg_stat_activity would be on the "wait_event_type" and "wait_event"
> columns).
>
> The reason I mentioned "should it be active" is because wait_event and wait_event_type
> could be non empty in pg_stat_activity while the session is not in an active state
> anymore (then not waiting).
>
> A right query would be like the one in [1]:
>
> "
> SELECT a.pid, a.wait_event, w.description
> FROM pg_stat_activity a JOIN
> pg_wait_events w ON (a.wait_event_type = w.type AND
> a.wait_event = w.name)
> WHERE a.wait_event is NOT NULL and a.state = 'active';
> "
>
> means filtering on the "active" state too, and that's what the description
> proposal I made was trying to highlight.
Thanks. As such I made it:
"which provides descriptions about wait events and can be combined with
`pg_stat_activity` to give more insight into why an active session is
waiting."
Jonathan
