On 3 December 2015 at 22:58, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > > On 3 December 2015 at 09:32, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> > >> On 12/2/15 7:00 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> > I notice that you don't set the 'waiting' flag. 'waiting' is > presently > >> > documented as: > >> > > >> > <entry>True if this backend is currently waiting on a > lock</entry> > >> > > >> > ... but I'm inclined to just widen its definition and set it here, > since > >> > we most certainly are waiting, and the column isn't named > >> > 'waiting_on_a_lock'. It shouldn't upset various canned lock monitoring > >> > queries people have since they generally do an inner join on pg_locks > >> > anyway. > >> > >> I'm not so sure about that assumption. > > > > > > Even if it's an outer join, the worst that'll happen is that they'll get > entries with nulls in pg_locks. I don't think it's worth worrying about too > much. > > > > That can be one way of dealing with it and another is that we > keep the current column as it is and add another view related > wait stats, anyway we need something like that for other purposes > like lwlock waits etc. Basically something on lines what we > is being discussed in thread [1] > > [1] - > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1+=5Ex8-5NRr3u94=_t2p65v0kcjZ5rXddVmkx=lwa...@mail.gmail.com > Good point. I'm not sure this shouldn't set 'waiting' anyway, though. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services