Re: Rethinking stats communication mechanisms

From: "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rethinking stats communication mechanisms
Date: 2006-06-19 14:28:41
Message-ID: DB106B1B5B8F734B8FF3E155A3A556C202D4FBF5@clemail1.tmwsystems.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> * reader's read starts before and ends after writer's update: reader
> will certainly note a change in update counter.
>
> * reader's read starts before and ends within writer's update: reader
> will note a change in update counter.
>
> * reader's read starts within and ends after writer's update: reader
> will note a change in update counter.
>
> * reader's read starts within and ends within writer's update: reader
> will see update counter as odd.
>
> Am I missing anything?
>

The only remaining concern would be the possibility of the reader
thrashing because the writer is updating so often that the reader never
gets the same counter twice. IIRC, the reader was only sampling, not
trying to catch every entry, so that will help. But is it enough?

Regards,
Paul Bort

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Giampaolo Tomassoni 2006-06-19 14:46:51 R: R: R: Per-server univocal identifier
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-06-19 14:16:18 Re: regresssion script hole