| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nigel Heron <nheron(at)querymetrics(dot)com>, Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: stats for network traffic WIP |
| Date: | 2013-12-11 18:13:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVidp73h49u3VnrY2cQwMCq1vw9GZqUNCE-USMm+9jOYdYg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 12/10/13, 5:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Having said that, I can't get very excited about this feature anyway,
>> so I'm fine with rejecting the patch. I'm not sure that enough people
>> care to justify any added overhead at all. The long and the short of
>> it is that network traffic generally is what it is, for any given query
>> workload, and so it's not clear what's the point of counting it.
>
> Also, if we add this, the next guy is going to want to add CPU
> statistics, memory statistics, etc.
>
> Is there a reason why you can't get this directly from the OS?
I would say that its more of a convenience to track the usage directly
from the database instead of setting up OS infrastructure to store it.
That said, it should be possible to directly do it from OS level. Can
we think of adding this to pgtop, though?
I am just musing here.
Regards,
Atri
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2013-12-11 18:22:59 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-11 17:57:28 | Re: autovacuum_work_mem |