Re: Performance monitor signal handler

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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