Re: Performance monitor signal handler

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance monitor signal handler
Date: 2001-03-15 15:47:59
Message-ID: 13817.984671279@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> What about a collector deamon, fired up by the postmaster and
> receiving UDP packets from the backends. Under heavy load, it
> might miss some statistic messages, well, but that's not as
> bad as having locks causing backends to loose performance.

Interesting thought, but we don't want UDP I think; that just opens
up a whole can of worms about checking access permissions and so forth.
Why not a simple pipe? The postmaster creates the pipe and the
collector daemon inherits one end, while all the backends inherit the
other end.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2001-03-15 17:05:17 Re: Sheduling in SQL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-15 15:43:47 Re: Sheduling in SQL