Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive
От | Ildus Kurbangaliev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55C2437E.1060807@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something
more descriptive
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/04/2015 11:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev > <i.kurbangaliev@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> A new version of the patch. I used your idea with macros, and with tranches that >> allowed us to remove array with names (they can be written directly to the corresponding >> tranche). > You seem not to have addressed a few of the points I brought up here: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoaGqhah0VTamsfaOMaE9uOrCPYSXN8hCS9=wirUPJSAhg@mail.gmail.com > About `memcpy`, PgBackendStatus struct already have a bunch of multi-byte variables, so it will be not consistent anyway if somebody will want to copy it in that way. On the other hand two bytes in this case give less overhead because we can avoid the offset calculations. And as I've mentioned before the class of wait will be useful when monitoring of waits will be extended. Other things from that patch already changed in latest patch. On 08/04/2015 11:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Just a bystander here, I haven't reviewed this patch at all, but I have > two questions, > > 1. have you tested this under -DEXEC_BACKEND ? I wonder if those > initializations are going to work on Windows. No, it wasn't tested on Windows -- Ildus Kurbangaliev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: