Re: Speaking of pgstats
От | Agent M |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Speaking of pgstats |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23e89053f368ca7abe6df78fc5e4ab7f@themactionfaction.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Speaking of pgstats (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Speaking of pgstats
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>> The general idea would be to still use UDP backend->stats but get rid >> of >> the pipe part (emulated by standard tcp sockets on win32), so we'd >> still >> have the "lose packets instead of blocking when falling behind". > > Right. Please correct me if I am wrong, but using UDP logging on the same computer is a red herring. Any non-blocking I/O would do, no? If the buffer is full, then the non-blocking I/O send function will fail and the message is skipped. Has anyone observed UDP ever drop *written* packets on loopback? Looking at the Darwin 8 sources, it appears that the loopback streams all converge to the same stream code, which makes sense... If a kernel is too busy to handle I/O, doesn't it have higher priorities than switching to a user context?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: