Re: stats_block_level - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: stats_block_level
Date
Msg-id 1185525720.4191.2.camel@ebony.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: stats_block_level  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: stats_block_level  (Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 04:29 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Any reason not to just fold them both into stats_start_collector ?
> > >
> > > Well, then you couldn't turn collection on and off without restarting
> > > the postmaster, which might be a pain.
> > 
> > Maybe we don't actually need stats_start_collector, but instead we start 
> > it always and just have one knob to turn collection on and off.  I'm 
> > not sure whether the extra process would bother people if they're not 
> > collecting, but we have so many extra processes now, why would anyone 
> > care.
> 
> I agree.  Let's remove stats_start_collector and merge the other two
> into a single setting.  Anything more than that is overkill.
> 
> Having a single idle process is not a problem to anyone.  It just sleeps
> all the time.  We are all used to having six useless getty processes and
> nobody cares.

Yes, thats a great plan.

--  Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: stats_block_level
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes