Re: [mux@FreeBSD.org: Re: Anyone interested in improving postgresql scaling?]

Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, the thing is, we've pretty much had it handed to us that
> >> current-command indicators that aren't up to date are not very useful.
> >> So rate-limited updates strike me as a useless compromise.
>
> > I don't get your argument - ps auxww is never going to be 100%
> > up-to-date because during the time the command is running the status
> > may change.
>
> Of course. But we have already done the update-once-every-half-second
> bit --- that was how pg_stat_activity used to work --- and our users
> made clear that it's not good enough. So I don't see us expending
> significant effort to convert the setproctitle code path to that
> approach. The clear way of the future for expensive-setproctitle
> platforms is just to turn it off entirely and rely on the new
> pg_stat_activity implementation.

8.3 will modify less memory to update the process title than happened in
the past --- perhaps that will reduce the overhead, but I doubt it. You
can test CVS HEAD to check it.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +