At Tue, 13 Jun 2023 17:18:58 -0700, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote in > Hi, > > On 2023-06-13 20:55:19 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 6:59 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > I think we should add a few wait events for log emission. I think it'd be > > > good > > > to have one wait event for each log destination. > > > > > > That's not perfect - we'd e.g. still not be able to debug where the logger > > > process is stuck, due it not being in pg_stat_activity. But other > > > processes > > > reporting the wait event for writing to the logger process would be a > > > pretty > > > good hint. > > > > > > +1. > > > > Would it make sense to at the same time create a separate one for > > syslog, or just use the same? > > I think it should be a separate one for each of the log paths in > send_message_to_server_log(). I don't think we gain anything by being stingy > here - and it's not like we add one every other day. > > I do wonder if it'd be worth setting up a wait event around emit_log_hook - > it's somewhat of a misuse of wait events, but might be useful nonetheless?
We are already doing something similar for archive_command. Given that the execution time of this hook is unpredictable, it seems resonable to me to do that there. Essentially, we are "waiting" for the hook-function to return. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
