On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Reiss <thomas.re...@dalibo.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Here's a small docpatch to fix two typos in the new documentation.
>> Thanks, committed.
> I just had a quick look at the wait_event committed, and I got a
> little bit disappointed that we actually do not track latch waits yet,
> which is perhaps not that useful actually as long as an event name is
> not associated to a given latch wait when calling WaitLatch. I am not
> asking for that with this release, this is just for the archive's
> sake, and I don't mind coding that myself anyway if need be. The
> LWLock tracking facility looks rather cool btw :)

Yes, I'm quite excited about this.  I think it's pretty darn awesome.

I doubt that it would be useful to treat a latch wait as an event.
It's too generic.  You'd want something more specific, like waiting
for WAL to arrive or waiting for a tuple from a parallel worker or
waiting to write to the client.  It'll take some thought to figure out
how to organize and categorize that stuff, but it'll also be wicked

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:

Reply via email to