On 5/20/24 5:34 AM, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
Hi,On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 05:10:10PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:On 5/16/24 1:15 AM, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:Hi, On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:45:35PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:Hi, Attached is a copy of the PostgreSQL 17 Beta 1 release announcement draft.Thanks for working on it! I've one comment:PostgreSQL 17 also introduces a new view, [`pg_wait_events`](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/view-pg-wait-events.html), which provides descriptions about wait events and can be combined with `pg_stat_activity` to give more insight into an operation.Instead of "to give more insight into an operation", what about "to give more insight about what a session is waiting for (should it be active)"?I put: "to give more in insight into why a session is blocked."Thanks!Does that work?I think using "waiting" is better (as the view is "pg_wait_events" and the join with pg_stat_activity would be on the "wait_event_type" and "wait_event" columns). The reason I mentioned "should it be active" is because wait_event and wait_event_type could be non empty in pg_stat_activity while the session is not in an active state anymore (then not waiting). A right query would be like the one in [1]: " SELECT a.pid, a.wait_event, w.description FROM pg_stat_activity a JOIN pg_wait_events w ON (a.wait_event_type = w.type AND a.wait_event = w.name) WHERE a.wait_event is NOT NULL and a.state = 'active'; " means filtering on the "active" state too, and that's what the description proposal I made was trying to highlight.
Thanks. As such I made it:"which provides descriptions about wait events and can be combined with `pg_stat_activity` to give more insight into why an active session is waiting."
Jonathan
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature