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

Re: stats_block_level

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "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>,"Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: stats_block_level
Date: 2007-07-27 08:42:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

  Simon Riggs

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-07-27 08:42:08
Subject: Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-07-27 08:29:13
Subject: Re: stats_block_level

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group