Re: Performance monitor

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> How do people feel about adding a single handler to 7.1? Is it
> something I can slip into the current CVS, or will it have to exist as a
> patch to 7.1. Seems it would be pretty isolated unless someone sends
> the signal, but it is clearly a feature addition.

> OK, I will distribute it as a patch.

Patch or otherwise, this approach seems totally unworkable. A signal
handler cannot do I/O safely, it cannot look at shared memory safely,
it cannot even look at the backend's own internal state safely. How's
it going to do any useful status reporting?

Firing up a separate backend process that looks at shared memory seems
like a more useful design in the long run. That will mean exporting
more per-backend status into shared memory, however, and that means that
this is not a trivial change.

regards, tom lane