On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 03:36:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > In practice, there should never be waits on LWLocks (much less spinlocks) > that exceed order-of-milliseconds; if there are, either we chose the wrong > lock type or the system is pretty broken in general. So maybe it's > sufficient if we provide a wait start time for heavyweight locks ... > though that still seems kind of ugly. (Also, I don't recall the existing > code factorization there, but getting the start time into pg_stat_activity > without an extra gettimeofday call might be hard. As I said, there is > one being done, but I'm not sure how accessible its result is.)
Agreed. No need in adding overhead for short-lived locks because the milli-second values are going to be meaningless to users. I would be happy if we could find some weasel value for non-heavyweight locks. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
