Re: Effect of stopped status collector process

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(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 12:30:47
Message-ID: 20081126123047.GA4275@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Merlin Moncure escribió:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:

> > 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?

Doubtful -- the collector would have to write the contents every time
someone wanted to read it, and nobody could open it while someone else
is reading (or they'd read from the middle of the contents).

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-11-26 13:52:46 Re: slow, long-running 'commit prepared'
Previous Message Csaba Együd 2008-11-26 11:25:21 Re: Separate Sessions?? (View data <-> Query tool)