From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Increasing the length of pg_stat_activity.current_query... |
Date: | 2004-11-08 22:02:58 |
Message-ID: | 878y9cj8x9.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > The pgstat messages are indeed fixed size.
>
> No, there's a fixed maximum size.
Hm. *rereads source*
It's true, pgstat_report_activity only sends the actual size of the query, not
the full payload size.
The only problem I see in raising the size of PGSTAT_MSG_PAYLOAD is that it
also governs the size of PGSTAT_NUM_TABPURGE and PGSTAT_NUM_TABENTRIES.
There's no need to grow those arrays and risk losing them. But these message
sizes could just be left based on the 1k value while boosting the maximum size
of PGSTAT_ACTIVITY_SIZE.
That would have no downside and only benefits. The worst case is that a
machine that didn't handle UDP fragment reassembly would drop the packets that
postgres is currently dropping preemptively. Shorter queries and other packets
would be unaffected.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-11-08 22:30:42 | Re: Increasing the length of pg_stat_activity.current_query... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-08 21:37:15 | Re: ExclusiveLock |