| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |