Horton

Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-03-14T19:52:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
<kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do have extended localBackendStatusTable with slots for non-backend
> processes. But, I've renamed it as localProcStatusTable since it
> includes all processes. I'll keep the variable name as
> localBackendStatusTable in the updated patch to avoid any confusion.
> I've extended BackendStatusArray to store auxiliary processes.
> Backends use slots indexed in the range from 1 to MaxBackends
> (inclusive), so we use MaxBackends + AuxProcType + 1 as the index of
> the slot for an auxiliary process.

I think the subject of this the thread, for which I'm probably to
blame, is bad terminology.  The processes we're talking about exposing
in pg_stat_activity here are really backends, too, I think.  They're
just ... special backends.  So I would tend to avoid any backend ->
process type of renaming.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Show more processes in pg_stat_activity.