Re: Performance monitor signal handler

From: Thomas Swan <tswan-lst(at)ics(dot)olemiss(dot)edu>
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance monitor signal handler
Date: 2001-03-13 21:36:59
Message-ID: 5.0.2.1.0.20010313151136.027ca268@tangent.ics.olemiss.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>On reciept of the info signal, the backends collaborate to piece
>together a status file. The status file is given a temporay name.
>When complete the status file is rename(2)'d over a well known
>file.

Reporting to files, particularly well known ones, could lead to race
conditions.

All in all, I think your better off passing messages through pipes or a
similar communication method.

I really liked the idea of a "server" that could parse/analyze data from
multiple backends.

My 2/100 worth...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alfred Perlstein 2001-03-13 21:46:25 Re: Performance monitor signal handler
Previous Message Alfred Perlstein 2001-03-13 21:21:54 Re: WAL & SHM principles