On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On November 19, 2015 8:09:38 AM PST, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
>><i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>>> The moving base tranches to shared memory has been discussed many
>>> The point is using them later in pg_stat_activity and other
>>> views.
>>I'm not in agreement with this idea.  Actually, I'd prefer that the
>>tranches live in backend-private memory, not shared memory, so that we
>>could for example add backend-local counters to them if desired.
> I don't buy that argument. It'd be nearly trivial to have a 
> backend_tranchestats array, indexed by the tranche id, for such counters.

Hmm, true.

> It's really not particularly convenient to allocate tranches right now. You 
> have to store at least the identifier in shared memory and then redo the 
> registration in each process. Otherwise some processes can't identify them. 
> Which of rather inconvenient of you want to register some at runtime

Sure, that's why we're proposing to use an enum or a list of #defines
for that.  I don't see a need to do any more than that.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to