From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: refusing connections based on load ... |
Date: | 2001-04-25 20:51:42 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.33.0104251748020.4451-100000@mobile.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > The idea behind the load average based approach is
> > to make the postmaster respect the situation of the overall system.
>
> That'd be great if we could do it, but as I pointed out, the available
> stats do not allow us to do it very well.
>
> I think this will create a lot of portability headaches for no real
> gain. If it were something we could just do and forget, I would not
> object --- but the porting issues will create a LOT more work than
> I think this can possibly be worth. The fact that the work is
> distributed and will mostly be incurred by people other than the ones
> advocating the change doesn't improve matters.
As I mentioned, getloadavg() appears to be support on 3 of the primary
platforms we work with, so I'd say for most installations, portability
issues aren't an issue ...
Autoconf has a 'LOADAVG' check already, so what is so problematic about
using that to enabled/disable that feature?
If ( loadavg available on OS && enabled in postgresql.conf )
operate on it
} else ( loadavg not available on OS && enabled )
noop with a WARN level error that its not available
}
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2001-04-25 21:03:31 | Re: refusing connections based on load ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-25 20:46:30 | Re: Cursor support in pl/pg |