Re: Waits monitoring - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Waits monitoring |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1JCzq-nPTMwbJRy2K87L0jARqOgXkL+Ub5ANFU8pom=Bw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: Waits monitoring (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Responses |
Re: Waits monitoring
(Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Re: Waits monitoring (Ildus Kurbangaliev <i.kurbangaliev@postgrespro.ru>) |
| List | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-04 23:44:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I see the need for both current wait information and for cumulative
> > historical detail.
> >
> > I'm willing to wait before reviewing this, but not for more than 1 more CF.
> >
> > Andres, please decide whether we should punt to next CF now, based upon
> > other developments. Thanks
>
> I think we can do some of the work concurrently - the whole lwlock
> infrastructure piece is rather independent and what currently most of
> the arguments are about. I agree that the actual interface will need to
> be coordinated.
>
> Ildus, could you please review Amit & Robert's patch?
>
P.S. - This mail is not to point anything wrong with any particular individual,
>
> On 2015-09-04 23:44:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I see the need for both current wait information and for cumulative
> > historical detail.
> >
> > I'm willing to wait before reviewing this, but not for more than 1 more CF.
> >
> > Andres, please decide whether we should punt to next CF now, based upon
> > other developments. Thanks
>
> I think we can do some of the work concurrently - the whole lwlock
> infrastructure piece is rather independent and what currently most of
> the arguments are about. I agree that the actual interface will need to
> be coordinated.
>
> Ildus, could you please review Amit & Robert's patch?
>
Are you talking about patch where I have fixed few issues in Robert's
patch [1] or the original patch [3] written by me.
IIUC, this is somewhat different than what Ildus is doing in his latest
patch [2].
Sorry, but I think there is some confusion about that patch [1] development.
Let me try to summarize what I think has happened and why I feel there is
some confusion. Initially Robert has proposed the idea of having a
column in pg_stat_activity for wait_event on hackers and then I wrote an
initial patch so that we can discuss the same in a more meaningful way
and wanted to extend that patch based on consensus and what any other
patch like Waits monitoring would need from it. In-between Ildus has proposed
Waits monitoring patch and also started hacking the other pg_stat_activity
patch and that was the starting point of confusion. Now I think that the current
situation is there's one patch [1] of Robert (with some fixes by myself) for standardising
LWLock stuff, so that we can build pg_stat_activity patch on top of it and then
a patch [2] from Ildus for doing something similar but I think it hasn't used Robert's
patch.
I think the intention of having multiple people develop same patch is to get
the work done faster, but I think here it is causing confusion and I feel that
is one reason the patch is getting dragged as well. Let me know your thoughts
about what is the best way to proceed?
P.S. - This mail is not to point anything wrong with any particular individual,
rather about the development of a particular patch getting haphazard because
of some confusion. I am not sure that this is the right thread to write about
it, but as it has been asked here to review the patch in other related thread,
so I have mentioned my thoughts on the same.
pgsql-hackers by date: