adding more information about process(es) cpu and memory usage

From: Radovan Jablonovsky <radovan(dot)jablonovsky(at)replicon(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: adding more information about process(es) cpu and memory usage
Date: 2015-04-23 17:00:26
Message-ID: CAJYcdTsG2=3L2WSKzsz6gY1UQ+OEv2pO=eyamxNJiPj4QFsPfw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

During current encounters with amazon web services - RDS, the DBA does not
have access to OS/linux shell of underlying instance. That render some
postgresql monitoring technique of process CPU and memory usage, not
useful. Even if the AWS provide internal tools/programming interface for
monitoring, it could be very useful to have this information provided by
postgresql system table(s)/view/functions/api. The information about how
much postgresql background/process is using CPU (similar to command top
result) and memory. it could be something as simple as adding cpu,memory
information fields to pg_stat_activity.

--

*Radovan Jablonovsky* | SaaS DBA | Phone 1-403-262-6519 (ext. 7256) | Fax
1-403-233-8046

*Replicon | Hassle-Free Time & Expense Management Software - 7,300
Customers - 70 Countrieswww.replicon.com
<http://www.replicon.com/> | facebook
<http://www.facebook.com/Replicon.inc> | twitter
<http://twitter.com/Replicon> | blog
<http://www.replicon.com/blog/> | contact us
<http://www.replicon.com/about_replicon/contact_us.aspx>We are
hiring! | search jobs
<http://tbe.taleo.net/NA2/ats/careers/searchResults.jsp?org=REPLICON&cws=1&act=sort&sortColumn=1&__utma=1.651918544.1299001662.1299170819.1299174966.10&__utmb=1.8.10.1299174966&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1299174985.10.3.utmcsr=google%7Cutmccn=(organic)%7Cutmcmd=organic%7Cutmctr=replicon%20careers&__utmv=1.%7C3=Visitor%20Type=Prospects=1,&__utmk=40578466>*

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2015-04-23 17:00:45 Re: Reducing tuple overhead
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2015-04-23 16:45:37 Re: Reducing tuple overhead