Re: [mux@FreeBSD.org: Re: Anyone interested in improving postgresql scaling?]

Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, the thing is, we've pretty much had it handed to us that
>> current-command indicators that aren't up to date are not very useful.
>> So rate-limited updates strike me as a useless compromise.

> I don't get your argument - ps auxww is never going to be 100%
> up-to-date because during the time the command is running the status
> may change.

Of course. But we have already done the update-once-every-half-second
bit --- that was how pg_stat_activity used to work --- and our users
made clear that it's not good enough. So I don't see us expending
significant effort to convert the setproctitle code path to that
approach. The clear way of the future for expensive-setproctitle
platforms is just to turn it off entirely and rely on the new
pg_stat_activity implementation.

regards, tom lane