On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.peder...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 09/16/2015 12:44 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: >> >> So, I think there is some value in keeping this information separate. >> > > Just a rebased patch after the excellent LWLockTranche work. > > And a new sample report with -c/-j 200 -M prepared.
Is this just for informational purposes, or is this something you are looking to have committed? I originally thought the former, but now I'm wondering if I misinterpreted your intent. I have a hard time getting excited about committing something that would, unless I'm missing something, pretty drastically increase the overhead of running with LWLOCK_STATS... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
