On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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 more CF. > > > > Andres, please decide whether we should punt to next CF now, based upon > > other developments. Thanks > > I think we can do some of the work concurrently - the whole lwlock > infrastructure piece is rather independent and what currently most of > the arguments are about. I agree that the actual interface will need to > be coordinated. > > Ildus, could you please review Amit & Robert's patch? >
Are you talking about patch where I have fixed few issues in Robert's patch [1] or the original patch [3] written by me. IIUC, this is somewhat different than what Ildus is doing in his latest patch [2]. Sorry, but I think there is some confusion about that patch [1] development. Let me try to summarize what I think has happened and why I feel there is some confusion. Initially Robert has proposed the idea of having a column in pg_stat_activity for wait_event on hackers and then I wrote an initial patch so that we can discuss the same in a more meaningful way and wanted to extend that patch based on consensus and what any other patch like Waits monitoring would need from it. In-between Ildus has proposed Waits monitoring patch and also started hacking the other pg_stat_activity patch and that was the starting point of confusion. Now I think that the current situation is there's one patch [1] of Robert (with some fixes by myself) for standardising LWLock stuff, so that we can build pg_stat_activity patch on top of it and then a patch [2] from Ildus for doing something similar but I think it hasn't used Robert's patch. I think the intention of having multiple people develop same patch is to get the work done faster, but I think here it is causing confusion and I feel that is one reason the patch is getting dragged as well. Let me know your thoughts about what is the best way to proceed? [1] - http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caa4ek1kdec1tm5ya9gkv85vtn4qqsrxzkjru-tu70g_tl1x...@mail.gmail.com [2] - http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3f71da37-a17b-4961-9908-016e6323e...@postgrespro.ru [3] - http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caa4ek1kt2e6xhvigisr5o1ac9nfo0j2wtb8n0ggd1_jklde...@mail.gmail.com P.S. - This mail is not to point anything wrong with any particular individual, rather about the development of a particular patch getting haphazard because of some confusion. I am not sure that this is the right thread to write about it, but as it has been asked here to review the patch in other related thread, so I have mentioned my thoughts on the same. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
