On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Jesper Pedersen
<jesper.pedersen@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 12:44 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
>>
>> So, I think there is some value in keeping this information separate.
>>
>
> Just a rebased patch after the excellent LWLockTranche work.
>
> And a new sample report with -c/-j 200 -M prepared.
Is this just for informational purposes, or is this something you are
looking to have committed? I originally thought the former, but now
I'm wondering if I misinterpreted your intent. I have a hard time
getting excited about committing something that would, unless I'm
missing something, pretty drastically increase the overhead of running
with LWLOCK_STATS...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
