Re: pg_stat_lwlocks view - lwlocks statistics, round 2
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga@uptime.jp>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Qi Huang <huangqiyx@hotmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Date: 2012-10-19T17:45:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga@uptime.jp> writes: > Ok, I guess we have reached the consensus to have > "some flight-recorder". Right? I remain unconvinced. I think the argument that this will promote novice understanding is complete hogwash: making any sense of lwlock-level stats will require deep PG understanding, not create it. And despite Jeff's optimistic views upthread, I don't think very many people have or will acquire such understanding. So I'm really resistant to accepting even minimal overhead in pursuit of this goal --- and I do not believe the overhead will be minimal, either. regards, tom lane