| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PGSQL-Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bgwriter stats |
| Date: | 2007-03-20 03:00:51 |
| Message-ID: | 3195.1174359651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems quite a bizarre way to do things. Why wouldn't you implement
>> this functionality by shipping messages to the stats collector?
> Would that have any benefits over the shmem approach?
Well, for one thing, it would fit naturally into the existing stats
structure instead of being a wart on the side. The problem of atomic
access to an int64 would go away, yet we'd still be able to keep a
running int64 total of the reports. You wouldn't lose the total over a
shutdown/restart. The value would obey the transactional-snapshot rules
we've established for stats output, making it safe to try to correlate
it with other stats. Probably a few other things I'm not thinking of...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-20 07:08:46 | Re: bgwriter stats |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-03-20 02:48:00 | Re: bgwriter stats |