Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> 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.

> Not sure if that really does that much to solve the concern.

Well, it reduces the amount of data churn that a statement shorter than
PGSTAT_STAT_INTERVAL could cause.

> 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.

If somebody wanted to do the work, that'd be a viable answer IMO.  You'd
really want to not wake backends that have nothing more to send, but
I agree that it'd be possible to advertise that in shared memory.

                        regards, tom lane


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

Reply via email to