| From: | Richard J Kuhns <rjk(at)grauel(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Justin Clift <aa2(at)bigpond(dot)net(dot)au>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance monitor |
| Date: | 2001-03-08 18:44:05 |
| Message-ID: | 15015.54005.969629.634328@localhost.grauel.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian writes:
...
> The problem I see with the shared memory idea is that some of the
> information needed may be quite large. For example, query strings can
> be very long. Do we just allocate 512 bytes and clip off the rest. And
> as I add more info, I need more shared memory per backend. I just liked
> the file system dump solution because I could modify it pretty easily,
> and because the info only appears when you click on the process, it
> doesn't happen often.
>
Have you thought about using a named pipe? They've been around for quite a
while, and should (he said with a :-)) be available on most-if-not-all
currently supported systems.
--
Richard Kuhns rjk(at)grauel(dot)com
PO Box 6249 Tel: (765)477-6000 \
100 Sawmill Road x319
Lafayette, IN 47903 (800)489-4891 /
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Hagerty | 2001-03-08 18:49:42 | Query not using index, please explain. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-08 18:34:38 | Checkpoint process signal handling seems wrong |