On 1/2/2006 3:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ moving to -hackers ]
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> I did some research on this because the numbers Tom quotes indicate there
>> is something wrong in the way we process stats_command_string
>> statistics.
>> [ ... proposed patch that seems pretty klugy to me ... ]
>
> I wonder whether we shouldn't consider something more drastic, like
> getting rid of the intermediate stats buffer process entirely.
>
> The original design for the stats communication code was based on the
> premise that it's better to drop data than to make backends wait on
The original design was geared towards searching for useless/missing
indexes and tuning activity like that. This never happened, but instead
people tried to use it as a reliable debugging or access statistics aid
... which is fine but not what it originally was intended for.
So yes, I think looking at what it usually is used for, a message
passing system like SysV message queues (puke) or similar would do a
better job.
Jan
> the stats collector. However, as things have turned out I think this
> notion is a flop: the people who are using stats at all want the stats
> to be reliable. We've certainly seen plenty of gripes from people who
> are unhappy that backend-exit messages got dropped, and anyone who's
> using autovacuum would really like the tuple update counts to be pretty
> solid too.
>
> If we abandoned the unreliable-communication approach, could we build
> something with less overhead?
>
> regards, tom lane
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #