| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: procpid? |
| Date: | 2011-06-15 15:40:23 |
| Message-ID: | 29136.1308152423@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, that would probably be a lot slower, and wouldn't necessarily
>> deliver as consistent a snapshot of system activity. It's better to
>> have one set-returning function that dumps out all the data in a
>> single pass.
> I wanted to address consistency issue in the previous mail, but then wanted
> that to be left for later.
> We can provide consistency the same way pg_locks provides; take a snapshot
> on first request within a transaction, and reuse that snapshot for
> subsequent calls. In this case we might want to go a bit finer grained by
> providing a snapshot for every query.
Quite honestly, the implementation mechanism used by the other
statistics views is enormous overkill. I agree with Robert that I'm not
eager to duplicate that for the activity view, when a simple SRF can get
the job done.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-15 15:54:25 | Re: FK NOT VALID can't be deferrable? |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2011-06-15 15:19:29 | Re: procpid? |