public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeff Davis <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adding locks statistics
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 04:36:04 +0000
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<otjn7ykaezlueayyp7fppggkldw23ykh3i6ite2rqq4xh7dwvl@w5dvqqgvqf25>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<v76tz252usppu2turrn6wxiyyxmybzxhqck5b3amtsbzrc6yto@n26qnwvpkxqw>
	<[email protected]>
	<isi5wszczhusgjetxwe6khxa5mbm5jms3msmbhwl73jktxw7ic@3mympoumua76>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 05:14:31AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 05:26:37PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 11:02:49AM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > How could a user benefit from that split? To me this is pointless number
> > > gathering that wastes resources and confuses users.
> > 
> > I was thinking that could be useful to know the distribution between "long" waits
> > (greater than the deadlock timeout) among all the waits.
> > 
> > If the vast majority are long waits that may indicate that the application is
> > misbehaving (as opposed to a tiny percentage of long waits).
> > 
> > I was also thinking to bring those stats per-backend (as a next step) and that
> > could also probably be more useful (distribution per host for example, thanks to
> > joining with pg_stat_activity).
> 
> As it seems that I'm the only one thinking that this split could be useful, I'm
> removing it in the attached. We can still split later on if we have requests from
> the field.
> 
> So, we're back to what we were discussing before the split. As in v7, 0003 is
> adding the new GUC. So that we can see what having a new GUC implies in ProcSleep()
> and we can just get rid of 0003 if we think the GUC is not worth the extra complexity
> (I don't have a strong opinion on it but tempted to think that the extra GUC is
> not worth it).

PFA, a rebase due to fd6ecbfa75ff.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

view thread (46+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Adding locks statistics
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox