| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Samuel Sieb <samuel(at)sieb(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance monitor signal handler |
| Date: | 2001-03-17 16:48:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1325.984847702@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Samuel Sieb <samuel(at)sieb(dot)net> writes:
> Just as another suggestion, what about sending the data to a different
> computer, so instead of tying up the database server with processing the
> statistics, you have another computer that has some free time to do the
> processing.
> Some drawbacks are that you can't automatically start/restart it from the
> postmaster and it will put a little more load on the network,
... and a lot more load on the CPU. Same-machine "network" connections
are much cheaper (on most kernels, anyway) than real network
connections.
I think all of this discussion is vast overkill. No one has yet
demonstrated that it's not sufficient to have *one* collector process
and a lossy transmission method. Let's try that first, and if it really
proves to be unworkable then we can get out the lily-gilding equipment.
But there is tons more stuff to do before we have useful stats at all,
and I don't think that this aspect is the most critical part of the
problem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-17 16:59:26 | Re: Stuck spins in current |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-17 16:37:17 | Re: beta6 pg_restore core dumps |