Re: Rethinking stats communication mechanisms

From: Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rethinking stats communication mechanisms
Date: 2006-06-18 12:57:43
Message-ID: 87lkruvcxk.fsf@suzuka.mcnaught.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:

> Douglas McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> writes:
>
>> Yeah, but if you turn on query logging in that case you'll see the
>> bajillions of short queries, so you don't need the accurate snapshot
>> to diagnose that.
>
> Query logging on a production OLTP machine? a) that would be a huge
> performance drain on the production system b) it would produce so much logging
> that it would take a significant amount of disk and i/o resources just to
> handle and c) you would need to implement special purpose tools just to make
> sense of these huge logs.

(a) and (b): of course you would only do it on a temporary basis for
problem diagnosis. We do that with our production apps where I work
(when absolutely necessary).

(c): Perl. :)

Ideally, you'd find the query storm problem in load testing before you
ever got to production. I hope to someday visit that planet--it must
be nice.

-Doug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-06-18 13:02:31 Unable to initdb using HEAD on Windows XP
Previous Message Arjen van der Meijden 2006-06-18 09:17:54 Re: [HACKERS] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL