> 12 марта 2016 г., в 13:59, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> написал(а): > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de > <mailto:and...@anarazel.de>> wrote: > > > > > > > Similarly for the wait event stuff - checkpointer, wal writer, > > > background writer are in many cases processes that very often are > > > blocked on locks, IO and such. Thus restricting the facility to > > > database connected processes seems like a loss. > > > > I think one way to address this would be to not only report > > PgBackendStatus type processes in pg_stat_activity. While that'd > > obviously be a compatibility break, I think it'd be an improvement. > > > > I think here another point which needs more thoughts is that many of the > pg_stat_activity fields are not relevant for background processes, ofcourse > one can say that we can keep those fields as NULL, but still I think that > indicates it is not the most suitable way to expose such information. > > Another way could be to have new view like pg_stat_background_activity with > only relevant fields or try expose via individual views like pg_stat_bgwriter.
From the DBA point of view it is much more convenient to see all wait events in one view. I don’t know if it is right to break compability even more, but IMHO exposing this data in different views is a bad plan. > > Do you intend to get this done for 9.6 considering an add-on patch for wait > event information displayed in pg_stat_activity? > > > With Regards, > Amit Kapila. > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com/> -- May the force be with you… https://simply.name
