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

Re: [HACKERS] Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2
Date: 2006-06-26 17:32:04
Message-ID: 2141.1151343124@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Something that might also be interesting is an option to suppress
>> per-command ps_status reporting.  On machines where updating ps status
>> takes a kernel call, there's now a pretty good argument why you might
>> want to turn that off and rely on pg_stat_activity instead.

> OK, can I get a timing report from someone with the title on/off that
> shows a difference?

IIRC, newer BSDen use a kernel call for this, so you should be able to
measure it on your own machine.  Just tweak ps_status.c to force it to
select PS_USE_NONE instead of PS_USE_SETPROCTITLE to generate a
comparison case.  I'll try it on my old HPUX box too.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2006-06-26 17:43:28
Subject: Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [CORE] GPL
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-26 17:24:41
Subject: pgsql: Change the row constructor syntax (ROW(...)) so that list

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Hiroshi SaitoDate: 2006-06-26 17:34:58
Subject: Re: MS-VC build patch
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-26 17:24:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2

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