Re: Session WAL activity
От
Michael Paquier
Тема
Re: Session WAL activity
Дата
Msg-id
20191206015714.GH121835@paquier.xyz
Ответ на
Re: Session WAL activity (Konstantin Knizhnik)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Session WAL activity Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Session WAL activity Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Re: Session WAL activity Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Session WAL activity Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Re: Session WAL activity Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Session WAL activity Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: Session WAL activity Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Session WAL activity Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Re: Session WAL activity Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Session WAL activity Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: Session WAL activity Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Re: Session WAL activity Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 12:23:40PM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote: > Concerning keeping PGPROC size as small as possible, I agree that it is > reasonable argument. > But even now it is very large (816 bytes) and adding extra 8 bytes will > increase it on less than 1%. It does not mean that we should add all kind of things to PGPROC as that's a structure sensitive enough already. By the way, why do you assume that 8-byte reads are always safe and atomic in the patch? > Right now pg_stat_activity also accessing PGPROC to obtain wait event > information and also not taking any locks. > So it can wrongly report backend status. But I never heard that somebody > complains about it. Please see pgstat.h, close to pgstat_report_wait_start(). -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления