Re: Performance monitor signal handler

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Samuel Sieb <samuel@sieb.net>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-03-17T16:48:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Samuel Sieb <samuel@sieb.net> writes:
> Just as another suggestion, what about sending the data to a different
> computer, so instead of tying up the database server with processing the
> statistics, you have another computer that has some free time to do the
> processing.

> Some drawbacks are that you can't automatically start/restart it from the
> postmaster and it will put a little more load on the network,

... and a lot more load on the CPU.  Same-machine "network" connections
are much cheaper (on most kernels, anyway) than real network
connections.

I think all of this discussion is vast overkill.  No one has yet
demonstrated that it's not sufficient to have *one* collector process
and a lossy transmission method.  Let's try that first, and if it really
proves to be unworkable then we can get out the lily-gilding equipment.
But there is tons more stuff to do before we have useful stats at all,
and I don't think that this aspect is the most critical part of the
problem.

			regards, tom lane