On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:03 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Reiss <thomas.re...@dalibo.com> >> wrote: >>> Here's a small docpatch to fix two typos in the new documentation. >> >> Thanks, committed. > > I just had a quick look at the wait_event committed, and I got a > little bit disappointed that we actually do not track latch waits yet, > which is perhaps not that useful actually as long as an event name is > not associated to a given latch wait when calling WaitLatch. I am not > asking for that with this release, this is just for the archive's > sake, and I don't mind coding that myself anyway if need be. The > LWLock tracking facility looks rather cool btw :)
Yes, I'm quite excited about this. I think it's pretty darn awesome. I doubt that it would be useful to treat a latch wait as an event. It's too generic. You'd want something more specific, like waiting for WAL to arrive or waiting for a tuple from a parallel worker or waiting to write to the client. It'll take some thought to figure out how to organize and categorize that stuff, but it'll also be wicked cool. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
