Re: [HACKERS] log_lock_waits to identify transaction's relation

2013-01-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On 16 January 2013 03:47, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: Simon, * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: Attached patch passes through further information about the lock wait, so we can display the following message instead LOG: process %d acquired %s on transaction %u on

Re: [HACKERS] log_lock_waits to identify transaction's relation

2013-01-16 Thread Stephen Frost
* Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: A couple quick notes regarding the patch- what does GetXactLockTableRelid really provide..? The ability to access a static variable in a different module. It doesn't provide anything other than that, It isn't actually necessary for that

Re: [HACKERS] log_lock_waits to identify transaction's relation

2013-01-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On 16 January 2013 16:12, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote: * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: A couple quick notes regarding the patch- what does GetXactLockTableRelid really provide..? The ability to access a static variable in a different module. It doesn't provide

[HACKERS] log_lock_waits to identify transaction's relation

2013-01-15 Thread Simon Riggs
When there is contention between concurrent transactions it shows up as with log_lock_waits as LOG: process %d acquired %s on %s transaction %u after %ld.%03d ms Which is mostly useless for identifying and eliminating the contention in the application since you can't tell which table is

Re: [HACKERS] log_lock_waits to identify transaction's relation

2013-01-15 Thread Stephen Frost
Simon, * Simon Riggs (si...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: Attached patch passes through further information about the lock wait, so we can display the following message instead LOG: process %d acquired %s on transaction %u on relation %u of database %u after %ld.%03d ms I love this idea.