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