Re: Speaking of pgstats - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Agent M
Subject Re: Speaking of pgstats
Date
Msg-id 23e89053f368ca7abe6df78fc5e4ab7f@themactionfaction.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Speaking of pgstats  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Speaking of pgstats  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>> The general idea would be to still use UDP backend->stats but get rid 
>> of
>> the pipe part (emulated by standard tcp sockets on win32), so we'd 
>> still
>> have the "lose packets instead of blocking when falling behind".
>
> Right.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but using UDP logging on the same 
computer is a red herring. Any non-blocking I/O would do, no? If the 
buffer is full, then the non-blocking I/O send function will fail and 
the message is skipped.

Has anyone observed UDP ever drop *written* packets on loopback? 
Looking at the Darwin 8 sources, it appears that the loopback streams 
all converge to the same stream code, which makes sense...

If a kernel is too busy to handle I/O, doesn't it have higher 
priorities than switching to a user context?



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: John DeSoi
Date:
Subject: Re: Summer of Code Preparation
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Anyone want to finish BEFORE COMMIT triggers?