On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> There's too many "I"s in that para. I've not presented this as a
> defect, nor is there any reason to believe this post is aimed at you
> personally.
Well, actually, there is. You said in your original post that
something was "not correct" an
On 12 December 2016 at 18:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 12 December 2016 at 16:52, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
d
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 December 2016 at 16:52, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
>>> describe waits for tuple locks because in some cases that
On 12 December 2016 at 16:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
>> describe waits for tuple locks because in some cases that happens in
>> two stages.
>
> Well, I replied to that emai
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
> describe waits for tuple locks because in some cases that happens in
> two stages.
Well, I replied to that email to say that I didn't agree with your
analysis. I think
Last week I noticed that the Wait Event/Locks system doesn't correctly
describe waits for tuple locks because in some cases that happens in
two stages.
Now I notice that the Wait Event system doesn't handle waiting for
recovery conflicts at all, though it does access ProcArrayLock
multiple times.
