Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D262A9FA2AE
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:25:00 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 66920-09 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:24:50 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from mail01.enterprisedb.com (mail01.enterprisedb.com
 [63.246.7.168])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634729FB3AD
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:24:49 -0300 (ADT)
thread-index: AcfPmSL7zoZXbX88StSoJJOjL+XjyQ==
Received: from [172.24.32.57] ([62.232.55.118]) by mail01.enterprisedb.com
	with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:24:58 -0400
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4073
Subject: Re: User concurrency thresholding: where do I look?
From: "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>,
	<pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>,
	"Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
In-Reply-To: <46A8AFDF.3050804@sun.com>
References: <200707190828.59088.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200707191819.13899.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<15685.1184895926@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200707192138.39679.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<46A0FA31.2080208@sun.com> <12002.1184955831@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<46A1055F.9010304@sun.com> <12445.1184958793@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<46A11116.5030905@sun.com> <14909.1184962561@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<46A1205B.8010205@sun.com> <15343.1184965054@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1185180668.4284.149.camel@ebony.site>
	<23848.1185199901@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1185201556.4284.243.camel@ebony.site>
	<25095.1185202498@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1185205663.4284.249.camel@ebony.site>
	<1185212261.4284.270.camel@ebony.site>
	<1545.1185214760@sss.pgh.pa.us> <46A7D5AD.9000706@sun.com>
	<13162.1185405865@sss.pgh.pa.us> <46A8AFDF.3050804@sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:25:31 +0100
Message-ID: <1185463531.4190.72.camel@ebony.site>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2007 15:24:59.0140 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[20D93440:01C7CF99]
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200707/366
X-Sequence-Number: 26050

On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 10:29 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> The count is only for a 10-second snapshot.. Plus remember there are 
> about 1000 users running so the connection  being profiled only gets 
> 0.01 of the period on CPU..  And the count is for that CONNECTION only.

Is that for one process, or all processes aggregated in some way?

>  CheckpointStartLock          Shared               6
>  CheckpointStartLock       Exclusive             102

That's definitely whacked. Surely we didn't start 102 checkpoints yet
attempt to commit 6 times?
   
-- 
  Simon Riggs
  EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com