MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 10:57:55 +0900
From: Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com>
To: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Robert Haas
 <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL
 Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Introduce WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION and WAIT_EVENT_BUFFER_PIN
In-Reply-To: <81290a48-b25c-22a5-31a6-3feff5864fe3@gmail.com>
References: <c6f35117-4b20-4c78-1df5-d3056010dcf5@gmail.com>
 <20230515182956.5lavflljhpgpokxc@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <ZGKynuIpQp1G8Bec@paquier.xyz>
 <20230516001716.iy7no2q77vwdt5w2@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <ZGLQnikZoxsqj2dl@paquier.xyz>
 <20230516010102.jwmsuaoynz6zfqmn@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <ZGMRMrrz02v8MGTE@paquier.xyz>
 <CA+TgmobtMj42OoAqETwhmiNU3k9LB+MiZhK+qdKg4Jh3Dq-Dag@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230517233832.si5zpq3qnxmx3swb@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <CA+TgmoaYTd3YN3N3vtXi+X63ePOzAdiKfVYX-BROtpWSdF-Auw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZGaocGfirEt6OXNP@paquier.xyz>
 <81290a48-b25c-22a5-31a6-3feff5864fe3@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11
Message-ID: <4420c7fb5bf0894ce92d6857a8d041ed@oss.nttdata.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4420c7fb5bf0894ce92d6857a8d041ed%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2023-05-19 16:48, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> While at it, I think that making use of an enum might also be an open 
> door
> (need to think more about it) to allow extensions to set their own wait 
> event.
> Something like RequestNamedLWLockTranche()/GetNamedLWLockTranche() are 
> doing.
> 
> Currently we have "only" the "extension" wait event which is not that
> useful when
> there is multiples extensions installed in a database.

(Excuse me for cutting in, and this is not directly related to the 
thread.)
+1. I'm interested in the feature.

Recently, I encountered a case where it would be nice if
different wait events were output for each extension.

I tested a combination of two extensions, postgres_fdw and neon[1],
and they output the "Extension" wait event, but it wasn't immediately 
clear
which one was the bottleneck.

This is just a example and it probable be useful for other users. IMO, 
at least,
it's better to improve the specification that "Extension" wait event 
type has
only the "Extension" wait event.

[1] https://github.com/neondatabase/neon

Regards,

-- 
Masahiro Ikeda
NTT DATA CORPORATION