At 18:05 7/03/01 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> All in all, I do not see this as an easy task that you can whip out and
>> then release as a 7.1 patch without extensive testing. And given that,
>> I'd rather see it done with what I consider the right long-term approach,
>> rather than a dead-end hack. I think doing it in a signal handler is
>> ultimately going to be a dead-end hack.
>
>Well, the signal stuff will get me going at least.
Didn't someone say this can't be done safely - or am I missing something?
ISTM that doing the work to put things in shared memory will be much more
profitable in the long run. You have previously advocated self-tuning
algorithms for performance - a prerequisite for these will be performance
data in shared memory.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
