On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Jesper Pedersen <jesper.peder...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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".
Marked as rejected for this CF then, log overhead is not something to ignore. There has been a fair amount of infrastructure work done btw thanks to your impulse. > Alternative, I can redo the patch requiring an additional #define - f.ex. > LWLOCK_STATS_QUEUE_SIZES Feel free to do so if you wish, that may be interesting to see what this gives. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
