Re: Performance monitor signal handler
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Samuel Sieb <samuel@sieb.net>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-03-17T17:38:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > The only open issue is per-table stuff, and I would like to see some > circular buffer implemented to handle that, with a collection process > that has access to shared memory. That will get us into locking/contention issues. OTOH, frequent trips to the kernel to send stats messages --- regardless of the transport mechanism chosen --- don't seem all that cheap either. > Even better, have an SQL table updated with the per-table stats > periodically. That will be horribly expensive, if it's a real table. I think you missed the point that somebody made a little while ago about waiting for functions that can return tuple sets. Once we have that, the stats tables can be *virtual* tables, ie tables that are computed on-demand by some function. That will be a lot less overhead than physically updating an actual table. regards, tom lane