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?

Why can't we do what we do with Cancel, where we set a flag and check it
at safe places?

> 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.

Right, that is a lot of work.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026