Re: Adding locks statistics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bertrand Drouvot
Subject Re: Adding locks statistics
Date
Msg-id acSwlC46/WhYZuy5@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Adding locks statistics  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Adding locks statistics
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 08:06:20AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 
> I like the patch, but I happen to not like my initial idea of relying
> on a NOTICE in an injection point combined with your new API in
> BackgroundPsql because we can already achieve the same with a wait
> injection point and use BackgroundPsql::query_until() with an \echo to
> detect that the command is blocked.

Yeah that works too.

> The updated version attached uses this method (edited quickly your
> commit message).  Like your patch there is no need for hardcoded
> sleeps and the CI's first impressions are actually good,

Same here.

> but I am
> going to need more runs to gain more confidence.  Note I should be
> able to do something here in 10 days or so.  If you could confirm the
> stability on your side for the time being with more runs, that would
> help, of course.

With wait + echo we don't need s2 to "on_error_stop => 0" anymore. I changed
that in the attached. I'll run more CI tests during those 10 days. Let's sync
up when you'll be about to push it.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Pang
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix premature timeout in pg_promote() caused by signal interruptions
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_buffercache: Add per-relation summary stats