On 08/08/2016 07:37 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 02:06:40AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
I hope wait event monitoring will be on by default even if the overhead is not
almost zero, because the data needs to be readily available for faster
troubleshooting. IMO, the benefit would be worth even 10% overhead. If you
disable it by default because of overhead, how can we convince users to enable
it in production systems to solve some performance problem? I’m afraid severe
users would say “we can’t change any setting that might cause more trouble, so
investigate the cause with existing information.”
If you want to know why people are against enabling this monitoring by
default, above is the reason. What percentage of people do you think
would be willing to take a 10% performance penalty for monitoring like
this? I would bet very few, but the argument above doesn't seem to
address the fact it is a small percentage.
I would argue it is zero. There are definitely users for this feature
but to enable it by default is looking for trouble. *MOST* users do not
need this.
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
