https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43287
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guk <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #3) > Jobs are pulled from queue randomly these days, so this metric may be less > meaningful. Even in the worst such case, a median time could be reported to at least indicate the "typical" delay. But frankly, if old jobs remain stuck in the queue for so long that MIN(job_timestamp) becomes effectively meaningless, then the picking method itself is dubious - which is a bad reason for not exposing the metric! Though the queue age might seem unrelated to operational concerns (since the JobQueue is a documented and controlled breach of database consistency), the duration is relevant to the general issue of database integrity (because, like cached pages, links should not be out of date indefinitely). More practically, a disclosed statistic would reassure editors, who frequently and understandably ask: "Will my template edit or category change propagate, even though I saved the edit ages ago and nothing has happened?" If editors knew that pages would be updated in a reasonable and foreseeable length of time, they would have less resort to the current practice of purging and saving null edits to bypass the inscrutable job queue at the expense of greater load on the servers as well as on the editors concerned! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
