|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Subject:||Re: shared-memory based stats collector|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> At Mon, 2 Jul 2018 14:25:58 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CA+TgmoYQhr30eAcgJCi1v0FhA+3RP1FZVnXqSTLe=6fHy9e5oA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
>> Copying the whole hash table kinds of sucks, partly because of the
>> time it will take to copy it, but also because it means that memory
>> usage is still O(nbackends * ntables). Without looking at the patch,
>> I'm guessing that you're doing that because we need a way to show each
>> transaction a consistent snapshot of the data, and I admit that I
>> don't see another obvious way to tackle that problem. Still, it would
>> be nice if we had a better idea.
> The consistency here means "repeatable read" of an object's stats
> entry, not a snapshot covering all objects. We don't need to copy
> all the entries at once following this definition. The attached
> version makes a cache entry only for requested objects.
Uh, what? That's basically destroying the long-standing semantics of
statistics snapshots. I do not think we can consider that acceptable.
As an example, it would mean that scan counts for indexes would not
match up with scan counts for their tables.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||David G. Johnston||2018-07-04 21:33:05||Re: Unexpected behavior of DROP VIEW/TABLE IF EXISTS|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2018-07-04 21:19:28||Re: Legacy GiST invalid tuples|