Re: Effect of stopped status collector process

From: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Siddharth Shah" <siddharth(dot)shah(at)elitecore(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Effect of stopped status collector process
Date: 2008-11-26 02:37:34
Message-ID: b42b73150811251837xb23b201w22021224550f5e26@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> If you are willing to run a hand-hacked version then I'd suggest doing
>> your experimentation with CVS HEAD. There are changes in place already
>> to reduce the stats file traffic.
>
> Why do we _have_ to write the file to disk? I wonder if it would work
> to store the file in a mmaped memory region and have the readers get
> data from there. We could have more than one copy, reference-counted so
> that they can be removed when the old readers are gone.

what about fifo files...would they be appropriate for something like this?

merlin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Smith 2008-11-26 03:17:20 slow, long-running 'commit prepared'
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-11-26 00:47:29 Re: Question about anyelement datatype