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

From Philip Warner
Subject Re: Performance monitor signal handler
Date
Msg-id 3.0.5.32.20010316122004.04dc1100@mail.rhyme.com.au
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance monitor signal handler  (Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
At 17:10 15/03/01 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> 
>> Which is why the backends should not do anything other than maintain the
>> raw data. If there is atomic data than can cause inconsistency, then a
>> dropped UDP packet will do the same.
>
>The UDP packet (a COPY) can contain a consistant snapshot of the data.
>If you have dependancies, you fit a consistant snapshot into a single
>packet.

If we were going to go the shared memory way, then yes, as soon as we start
collecting dependant data we would need locking, but IOs, locking stats,
flushes, cache hits/misses are not really in this category.

But I prefer the UDP/Collector model anyway; it gives use greater
flexibility + the ability to keep stats past backend termination, and,as
you say, removes any possible locking requirements from the backends.



----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498)          |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|                                |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC
Next
From: Barry Lind
Date:
Subject: Problems with outer joins in 7.1beta5