On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Please find attached v4. >> > > It is better > One important thing to notice, and probably deserves a code comment, that any modification of the slot fields done by the info sender backend must be done before actually sending the message via the shared memory queue (or detaching one, if there's nothing to be sent). Otherwise it is possible that is_processed flag will be set on the slot that has been already reused by the receiving backend. I could hit that problem rather easily while doing select pg_cmdstatus(pid,$1) from pg_stat_activity where pid<>pg_backend_pid() \watch 1 and running pgbench with >= 8 connections in the background. The observed effect is that after a few successful runs, the pg_cmdstatus() never returns because the next signaled backend loops through the slots and doesn't find an unprocessed one (because it was marked as processed by the backend that was responding just before it). Two notices: > > 1. The communication mechanism can be used more wide, than only for this > purpose. We can introduce a SendInfoHook - and it can be used for any > customer probes - memory, cpu, ... > Not sure if for CPU you can get any more insight than an external tool like top(1) will provide. For the memory, it might be indeed useful in some way (memory context inspection?) So there's certainly a space for generalization. Rename it as pg_backend_info()? 2. With your support for explain of nested queries we have all what we need > for integration auto_explain to core. > Well, I don't quite see how that follows. What I'm really after is bringing instrumentation support to this, so that not only plan could be extracted, but also the rows/loops/times accumulated thus far during the query run. -- Alex
