From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgstat_send_connstats() introduces unnecessary timestamp and UDP overhead |
Date: | 2021-09-01 01:55:58 |
Message-ID: | 7FFBCABE-BB37-4919-AA3F-C74CDDCBB544@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On August 31, 2021 6:33:15 PM PDT, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 04:55:35AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>> In the view of that, how about doubling PGSTAT_STAT_INTERVAL to 1000
>> milliseconds? That would mean slightly less up-to-date statistics, but
>> I doubt that that will be a problem. And it should even out the increase
>> in statistics messages, except in the case of lots of short-lived
>> sessions. But in that scenario you cannot have session statistics
>> without lots of extra messages, and such a workload has enough performance
>> problems as it is, so I don't think we have to specifically worry about it.
>
>Perhaps we could do that. Now, increasing an interval for the sake of
>balancing the extra load created by a feature while impacting the
>whole set of stats is not really appealing.
I think it's not helpful. Still increases the number of messages substantially in workloads with a lot of connections doing occasional queries. Which is common.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org | 2021-09-01 02:15:27 | Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-09-01 01:55:19 | Re: archive status ".ready" files may be created too early |