Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Trackingwait event for latches)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Trackingwait event for latches)
Дата
Msg-id 20170309214151.lwwyd35p7dtixzc4@alap3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Trackingwait event for latches)  (Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2017-03-09 16:37:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> > <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> In practice, I think it's common to do a quick select * from
> >> pg_stat_activity to determine whether a database instance is in use.
> 
> > I thought of the same kind of thing, and it was discussed upthread.
> > There seemed to be more votes for keeping it all in one view, but that
> > could change if more people vote.
> 
> I've not been paying much attention to this thread, but it seems like
> something that would help Peter's use-case and have other uses as well
> is a new column that distinguishes different process types --- user
> session, background worker, autovacuum worker, etc.

The patches upthread add precisely such a column.

Andres



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] compiler warning in set_tablefunc_size_estimates
Следующее
От: "Daniel Verite"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq