From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Configuration of statistical views |
Date: | 2001-06-29 18:17:23 |
Message-ID: | 14682.993838643@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:
>> backend start/stop events probably need to be reported whenever the
>> postmaster variable is set, even if all the USERSET variables are off.
> I don't consider backend start/stop messages to be critical,
> although we get some complaints already about connection
> slowness - well, this is somewhere in the microseconds. And
> it'd be a little messy because the start message is sent by
> the backend while the stop message is sent by the postmaster.
> So where exactly to put it?
This is exactly why I think they should be sent unconditionally.
It doesn't matter if a particular backend turns its reporting on and
off while it runs (I hope), but I'd think the stats collector would
get confused if it saw, say, a start and no stop message for a
particular backend.
OTOH, given that we need to treat the transmission channel as
unreliable, it would be a bad idea anyway if the stats collector got
seriously confused by not seeing the start or the stop message.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2001-06-29 18:19:54 | Re: Configuration of statistical views |
Previous Message | Ing. Roberto Andrade Fonseca | 2001-06-29 18:16:29 | Re: Re: Postgres to Dia UML |