Re: Performance monitor signal handler

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Samuel Sieb <samuel(at)sieb(dot)net>, 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 17:38:36
Message-ID: 1482.984850716@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The only open issue is per-table stuff, and I would like to see some
> circular buffer implemented to handle that, with a collection process
> that has access to shared memory.

That will get us into locking/contention issues. OTOH, frequent trips
to the kernel to send stats messages --- regardless of the transport
mechanism chosen --- don't seem all that cheap either.

> Even better, have an SQL table updated with the per-table stats
> periodically.

That will be horribly expensive, if it's a real table.

I think you missed the point that somebody made a little while ago
about waiting for functions that can return tuple sets. Once we have
that, the stats tables can be *virtual* tables, ie tables that are
computed on-demand by some function. That will be a lot less overhead
than physically updating an actual table.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-03-17 17:43:25 Re: Performance monitor signal handler
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-17 17:31:20 Re: beta6 pg_restore core dumps