On 12/18/2015 01:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
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...
Yeah, so unless other people using LWLOCK_STATS find the additional information of use (w/ the extra overhead), I think we can mark it as "Returned with feedback" or "Rejected".
Alternative, I can redo the patch requiring an additional #define - f.ex. LWLOCK_STATS_QUEUE_SIZES
Best regards, Jesper -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
