Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > Generated lwlocknames.[ch] don't have header comment because > generate-lwlocknames.pl writes them into wrong place. > > lmgr/Makefile looks to have some mistakes. Fixed. > - lwlocknames.c is not

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

Hi, > Great - let's try to deal with [1] first, then. > > Does anyone wish to object to me committing that part? I have no objection to commiting this, too. But some fix would be needed. === Generated lwlocknames.[ch] don't have header comment because generate-lwlocknames.pl writes them into

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev > wrote: > >> > Ildus, could you please review Amit & Robert's patch? > >> [1] - > >> >

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: >> > Ildus, could you please review Amit & Robert's patch? >> [1] - >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caa4ek1kdec1tm5ya9gkv85vtn4qqsrxzkjru-tu70g_tl1x...@mail.gmail.com > About [1] and [2]. They are

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:58:15 +0530 Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > > > On 2015-09-04 23:44:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > I see the need for both current wait information and for > > > cumulative

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > On 2015-09-04 23:44:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > I see the need for both current wait information and for cumulative > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2015-09-04 23:44:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I see the need for both current wait information and for cumulative > > historical detail. > > > > I'm willing to wait before reviewing this, but not for more than 1

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On 2015-09-04 23:44:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > I see the need for both current wait information and for cumulative > historical detail. > > I'm willing to wait before reviewing this, but not for more than 1 more CF. > > Andres, please decide whether we should punt to next CF now, based upon

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On 9 July 2015 at 21:10, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > I see that patch of Robert and Amit adds current lock type > into PgBackendStatus and, in turn, adds it into pg_stat_activity. This is > small part of what you implement in waits monitoring patch. Dividing big >

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru wrote: Hello. Currently, PostgreSQL offers many metrics for monitoring. However, detailed monitoring of waits is still not supported

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On Jul 9, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com mailto:kommi.harib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru wrote: Hello. Currently,

[HACKERS] Waits monitoring

Hello. Currently, PostgreSQL offers many metrics for monitoring. However, detailed monitoring of waits is still not supported yet. Such monitoring would let dba know how long backend waited for particular event and therefore identify bottlenecks. This functionality is very useful, especially

Re: [HACKERS] Waits monitoring

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru wrote: Hello. Currently, PostgreSQL offers many metrics for monitoring. However, detailed monitoring of waits is still not supported yet. Such monitoring would let dba know how long backend waited for particular