Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: stats_block_level

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: stats_block_level
Date: 2007-07-27 08:29:13
Message-ID: 20070727082913.GD2550@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Any reason not to just fold them both into stats_start_collector ?
> >
> > Well, then you couldn't turn collection on and off without restarting
> > the postmaster, which might be a pain.
> 
> Maybe we don't actually need stats_start_collector, but instead we start 
> it always and just have one knob to turn collection on and off.  I'm 
> not sure whether the extra process would bother people if they're not 
> collecting, but we have so many extra processes now, why would anyone 
> care.

I agree.  Let's remove stats_start_collector and merge the other two
into a single setting.  Anything more than that is overkill.

Having a single idle process is not a problem to anyone.  It just sleeps
all the time.  We are all used to having six useless getty processes and
nobody cares.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-07-27 08:42:00
Subject: Re: stats_block_level
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2007-07-27 08:15:28
Subject: Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group