Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZHLkuMmyJLhTrOQo41REZeDBMbi4=_-bFSMypE3r_vQw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive  ("andres@anarazel.de" <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:10 AM, andres@anarazel.de <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I do think there's a considerable benefit in improving the
> instrumentation here, but his strikes me as making live more complex for
> more users than it makes it easier. At the very least this should be
> split into two fields (type & what we're actually waiting on). I also
> strongly suspect we shouldn't use in band signaling ("process not
> waiting"), but rather make the field NULL if we're not waiting on
> anything.

+1 for splitting it into two fields.

Regarding making the field NULL, someone (I think you) proposed
previously that we should have one field indicating whether we are
waiting, and a separate field (or two) indicating the current or most
recent wait event.  That would be similar to how
pg_stat_activity.{query,state} work.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Batch update of indexes
Next
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL