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

Re: stats_block_level

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To:
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: stats_block_level
Date: 2007-07-27 09:15:38
Message-ID: 46A9B7BA.8010303@postgresql.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 04:29 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, thats a great plan.
> 
It gets my vote.

/D

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-07-27 09:22:42
Subject: Re: allow CSV quote in NULL
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-07-27 08:49:28
Subject: Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention

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