Hi,
On 2017-07-18 09:42:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wonder if a better answer wouldn't be to reduce PGSTAT_STAT_INTERVAL. > I don't think that value has been reconsidered since the code was written, > circa turn of the century. Maybe even make it configurable, though that > could be overkill. Not sure if that really does that much to solve the concern. Another, pretty half-baked, approach would be to add a procsignal triggering idle backends to send stats, and send that to all idle backends when querying stats. We could even publish the number of outstanding stats updates in PGXACT or such, without any locking, and send it only to those that have outstanding ones. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
