Re: Performance monitor signal handler - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Performance monitor signal handler
Date
Msg-id 25103.984761581@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance monitor signal handler  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
Responses Re: Performance monitor signal handler  (Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
>     Uh - not much time to spend if the statistics should at least
>     be  half  accurate. And it would become worse in SMP systems.
>     So that was a nifty idea, but I think it'd  cause  much  more
>     statistic losses than I assumed at first.

>     Back to drawing board. Maybe a SYS-V message queue can serve?

That would be the same as a pipe: backends would block if the collector
stopped accepting data.  I do like the "auto discard" aspect of this
UDP-socket approach.

I think Philip had the right idea: each backend should send totals,
not deltas, in its messages.  Then, it doesn't matter (much) if the
collector loses some messages --- that just means that sometimes it
has a slightly out-of-date idea about how much work some backends have
done.  It should be easy to design the software so that that just makes
a small, transient error in the currently displayed statistics.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Larry Rosenman
Date:
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Next
From: Doug McNaught
Date:
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC