MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOYmi+=60deN20WDyCoHCiecgivJxr=98s7s7-C8SkXwrCfHXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240630174812.d1.nmisch@google.com> <CAOYmi+=1Y4HKATADR=WYOMhxCkRQpoxH2rY0t1An6A5su1Cw-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <34cc0828-d988-4503-9944-ea6288f0ca8a@dunslane.net> <ZtUCcpf9y7gnHifu@paquier.xyz>
 <CAOYmi+n4RhhoaduZ-ndZGR_=kkzUjnaZtzi8g2GFsqt==Hhopg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zt_ZVcW4NmPM9NRB@paquier.xyz> <20240910172712.e8.nmisch@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240910172712.e8.nmisch@google.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:51:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+Tgmoade_mRdZQHMub31Y9YKg5FpZzwvzYP35R8AVszoRGWcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_activity: make slow/hanging authentication more visible
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>, 
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, 
	Euler Taveira <euler.taveira@enterprisedb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoade_mRdZQHMub31Y9YKg5FpZzwvzYP35R8AVszoRGWcg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 1:27=E2=80=AFPM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrot=
e:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 02:29:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > You are adding twelve event points with only 5
> > new wait names.  Couldn't it be better to have a one-one mapping
> > instead, adding twelve entries in wait_event_names.txt?
>
> No, I think the patch's level of detail is better.  One shouldn't expect =
the
> two ldap_simple_bind_s() calls to have different-enough performance
> characteristics to justify exposing that level of detail to the DBA.
> ldap_search_s() and InitializeLDAPConnection() differ more, but the DBA m=
ostly
> just needs to know the scale of their LDAP responsiveness problem.
>
> (Someday, it might be good to expose the file:line and/or backtrace assoc=
iated
> with a wait, like we do for ereport().  As a way to satisfy rare needs fo=
r
> more detail, I'd prefer that over giving every pgstat_report_wait_start()=
 a
> different name.)

I think unique names are a good idea. If a user doesn't care about the
difference between sdgjsA and sdjgsB, they can easily ignore the
trailing suffix, and IME, people typically do that without really
stopping to think about it. If on the other hand the two are lumped
together as sdjgs and a user needs to distinguish them, they can't. So
I see unique names as having much more upside than downside.

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com