On Mar 1, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jim Nasby <j...@nasby.net> writes: >> Dumb question: Is this something that could be solved by having the >> postmaster track this information in it's local memory and make it available >> via a variable-sized IPC mechanism, such as a port or socket? That would >> eliminate the need to clean things up after a crash; I'm not sure if there >> would be other benefits. > > Involving the postmaster in this is entirely *not* reasonable. The > postmaster cannot do anything IPC-wise that the stats collector couldn't > do, and every additional function we load onto the postmaster is another > potential source of unrecoverable database-wide failures. The PM is > reliable only because it doesn't do much.
Makes sense. Doesn't have to be the postmaster; it could be some other process. Anyway, I just wanted to throw the idea out as food for thought. I don't know if it'd be better or worse than temp files... -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
