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

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,

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to