From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgstat_send_connstats() introduces unnecessary timestamp and UDP overhead |
Date: | 2021-09-01 08:56:04 |
Message-ID: | 3f9265ead409db3071a4d59567de3f5c28a0ee9a.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2021-08-31 at 21:16 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-09-01 05:39:14 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-08-31 at 18:55 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 04:55:35AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:In the
> > > > > view of that, how about doubling PGSTAT_STAT_INTERVAL to 1000
> > > > > milliseconds? That would mean slightly less up-to-date statistics, but
> > > > > I doubt that that will be a problem.
> > >
> > > I think it's not helpful. Still increases the number of messages substantially in workloads
> > > with a lot of connections doing occasional queries. Which is common.
> >
> > How come? If originally you send table statistics every 500ms, and now you send
> > table statistics and session statistics every second, that should amount to the
> > same thing. Where is my misunderstanding?
>
> Consider the case of one query a second.
I guess I am too stupid. I don't see it.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-09-01 08:57:20 | Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw |
Previous Message | Mario Emmenlauer | 2021-09-01 08:55:23 | Re: dup(0) fails on Ubuntu 20.04 and macOS 10.15 with 13.0 |