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 22:08:38
Message-ID: 23455.1151359718@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> If you put a contition test in set_ps_display(), the only clean way to
> do this is for init_ps_display() to force update_process_title to true
> before we call set_ps_display(), then reset it to its original value,
> but that sounds pretty ugly.

No, refactor the code.  I was envisioning something called maybe
transmit_ps_display that would contain the part of set_ps_display
beginning at "Transmit new setting to kernel".  Then both set_ps_display
and init_ps_display would call that.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-26 23:31:51
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-06-26 21:59:49
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-26 23:31:51
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-06-26 21:59:49
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Non-transactional pg_class, try 2

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