On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:10:49 -0400 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Thank you for your comments. I understand the problem of my proposal patch. > 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 -- Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
