On Apr 3, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
>> Is there any way to tweak this in favor of more accurate information,
>> even if has a performance cost? We're finding that during normal
>> operations we're not seeing most connections added to the
>> pg_stat_activity table. We would like to be able to count on
>> accurate
>> information there.
>
> That's basically a non-starter because of the delay in reporting from
> the stats collector process (ie, even if the information was
> "completely
> accurate" it'd still be stale by the time that your code gets its
> hands
> on it). I think you'd be talking about a complete redesign of the
> stats
> subsystem to be able to use it that way.
BTW, there's some effort going into adding monitoring probes such as
dtrace to PostgreSQL. These would likely be ideal for what you're
trying to do.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
