Re: Introduce WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION and WAIT_EVENT_BUFFER_PIN
От | Drouvot, Bertrand |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Introduce WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION and WAIT_EVENT_BUFFER_PIN |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 81290a48-b25c-22a5-31a6-3feff5864fe3@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Introduce WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION and WAIT_EVENT_BUFFER_PIN (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Introduce WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION and WAIT_EVENT_BUFFER_PIN
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 5/19/23 12:36 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:28:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I mean, I agree that it would probably be hard to measure any real >> performance difference. But I'm not sure that's a good reason to add >> cycles to a path where we don't really need to. > > Honestly, I am not sure that it's worth worrying about performance > here, Same feeling here and as those new functions will be used "only" from pg_stat_get_activity() / pg_stat_get_backend_wait_event(). > or perhaps you know of some external stuff that could set the > extension class type in a code path hot enough that it would matter. And that would matter, only when making use of pg_stat_get_activity() / pg_stat_get_backend_wait_event() at the time the "extension is waiting" on this wait event. While at it, I think that making use of an enum might also be an open door (need to think more about it) to allow extensions to set their own wait event. Something like RequestNamedLWLockTranche()/GetNamedLWLockTranche() are doing. Currently we have "only" the "extension" wait event which is not that useful when there is multiples extensions installed in a database. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: