On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 01:25:08PM +0000, Greg Stark wrote: > I would actually argue the reverse of the above proposal would be more > useful. What we need are counts of how often LWLocks take longer than, > say, 50ms and for shorter waits we need to know how long. Perhaps not > precisely for individual waits but in aggregate we need the totals to > be right so as long as the measurements are accurate that would be > sufficient. So an accurate but imprecise measurement +/- 10ms with low > overhead is better than a precise measurement with high overhead.
I agree those values are important, but I don't think people are going to be able to use pg_stat_activity to get them, so I don't see the point of trying to supply them there. See https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmoav9q5v5zgt3+wp_1tqjt6tgyxrwrdctrrwimc+zy7...@mail.gmail.com for an excellent example of getting those values via polling. -- 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
