Re: adding more information about process(es) cpu and memory usage - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: adding more information about process(es) cpu and memory usage
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1xGF_TrT1pmzkJMDPZgU5ryuvEc93C6AkZbzzKSXer7TA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: adding more information about process(es) cpu and memory usage  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Responses Re: adding more information about process(es) cpu and memory usage
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
On 04/23/2015 08:00 PM, Radovan Jablonovsky wrote:
During current encounters with amazon web services - RDS, the DBA does not
have access to OS/linux shell of underlying instance. That render some
postgresql monitoring technique of process CPU and memory usage, not
useful. Even if the AWS provide internal tools/programming interface for
monitoring, it could be very useful to have this information provided by
postgresql system table(s)/view/functions/api. The information about how
much postgresql background/process is using CPU (similar to command top
result) and memory. it could be something as simple as adding cpu,memory
information fields to pg_stat_activity.

You can write an extension to do that. Of course, Amazon won't let you run your own C extension either (otherwise you could use that to escape into shell), but if you do it well and publish and get it included into standard distributions, they just might pick it up. Unless they don't want you to see that information. If they don't, then they wouldn't let you use the system views either.

In a nutshell, I don't think PostgreSQL should get involved in that...


I have often wanted an SQL function which would expose the back-end's rusage statistics to the front-end. This could support a \timing feature variant to psql that reports more than just wall-clock time.

I don't use RDS, and use shell access and "top" (and "strace" and "gdb") quite enthusiastically, but still it is a pain to correlate any given front-end to any given back-end.

Would such an addition to core be welcome?

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christian Ullrich
Date:
Subject: Re: [committers] pgsql: RLS fixes, new hooks, and new test module
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: adding more information about process(es) cpu and memory usage