Re: Performance monitor

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Are you sure about 'ps' stuff portability?
>
> > I am not going to do a huge amount with the actual ps columns, except
> > allow you to sort on them. I will do most on the ps status display we
> > use as the command line in ps.
>
> ... which in itself is not necessarily portable. How many of our
> supported platforms actually have working ps-status code? (This is
> an honest question: I don't know.)

No idea. My first version will probably only work a few platforms.

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.

Of course, if we start getting the full display partly from each
backend, we will have to use shared memory.

I could have started on a user admin tool, or GUC config tool, but a
performance monitor is the one item we really don't have yet. Doing
'ps' over and over is sort of lame.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026