* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > Agreed. My other thought on this is that there's a lot to be said for
> > having everything you need available through one tool- kinda like how
> > Emacs users rarely go outside of it.. :) And then there's also the
> > consideration that DBAs may not have access to the host system at all,
> > or not to the level needed to do similar analysis there.
>
> I completely agree with this, and yet I still think we should reject
> the patch, because I think the overhead is going to be intolerable.
That's a fair point and I'm fine with rejecting it on the grounds that
the overhead is too much. Hopefully that encourages the author to go
back and review Tom's comments and consider how the overhead could be
reduced or eliminated. We absolutely need better monitoring and I have
had many of the same strace-involving conversations. perf is nearly out
of the question as it's often not even installed and can be terribly
risky (I once had to get a prod box hard-reset after running perf on it
for mere moments because it never came back enough to let us do a clean
restart).
> I think the root of the problem is that our stats
> infrastructure is a streaming pile of crap.
+1
Thanks,
Stephen