Re: Parallel workers stats in pg_stat_database
От | Michael Banck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Parallel workers stats in pg_stat_database |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 673360ac.050a0220.28c3a4.e5eb@mx.google.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Parallel workers stats in pg_stat_database (Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Parallel workers stats in pg_stat_database
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > FWIW, with the recent commits of the pg_stat_statements patch, you need a > slight change in the patch I sent on this thread. You'll find a patch > attached to do that. You need to apply it after a rebase to master. > > - if (estate->es_parallelized_workers_planned > 0) { > + if (estate->es_parallel_workers_to_launch > 0) { > pgstat_update_parallel_workers_stats( > - (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallelized_workers_planned, > - (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallelized_workers_launched); > + (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallel_workers_to_launch, > + (PgStat_Counter) estate->es_parallel_workers_launched); I was wondering about the weird new column name workers_to_launch when I read the commit message - AFAICT this has been an internal term so far, and this is the first time we expose it to users? I personally find (parallel_)workers_planned/launched clearer from a user perspective, was it discussed that we need to follow the internal terms here? If so, I missed that discussion in this thread (and the other thread that lead to cf54a2c00). Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: