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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers