Re: Speaking of pgstats

"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> While we're talking about pgstats... There was some talk a while back
> about the whole bufferer/collector combination perhaps being unnecessary
> as well, and that it might be a good idea to simplify it down to just a
> collector. I'm not 100% sure what the end result of that discussion was,
> thouhg, and I can't find it in the archives :-(

Yeah, I was thinking that same thing this morning. AFAIR we designed
the current structure "on paper" in a pghackers thread, and never did
any serious experimentation to prove that it was worth having the extra
process. I concur it's worth at least testing the simpler method.

> The general idea would be to still use UDP backend->stats but get rid of
> the pipe part (emulated by standard tcp sockets on win32), so we'd still
> have the "lose packets instead of blocking when falling behind".

Right.

regards, tom lane