Re: stats_block_level - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: stats_block_level
Date
Msg-id 46A9B7BA.8010303@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: stats_block_level  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: stats_block_level  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.
> 
It gets my vote.

/D


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention
Next
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: LSN grouping within clog pages