Re: Background Processes and reporting - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Background Processes and reporting
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1KVtjAerVXRM6ejFkBThBXDOhVkttAPCKgL9edU0FwxVQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Background Processes and reporting  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Background Processes and reporting
Re: Background Processes and reporting
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
>
> > Similarly for the wait event stuff - checkpointer, wal writer,
> > background writer are in many cases processes that very often are
> > blocked on locks, IO and such.  Thus restricting the facility to
> > database connected processes seems like a loss.
>
> I think one way to address this would be to not only report
> PgBackendStatus type processes in pg_stat_activity. While that'd
> obviously be a compatibility break, I think it'd be an improvement.
>

I think here another point which needs more thoughts is that many of the pg_stat_activity fields are not relevant for background processes, ofcourse one can say that we can keep those fields as NULL, but still I think that indicates it is not the most suitable way to expose such information.

Another way could be to have new view like pg_stat_background_activity with only relevant fields or try expose via individual views like pg_stat_bgwriter.

Do you intend to get this done for 9.6 considering an add-on patch for wait event information displayed in pg_stat_activity?


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique
Next
From: Oleg Bartunov
Date:
Subject: Re: Background Processes and reporting