On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 04:58:47 -0700
Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> (please don't top-reply on this list)
> 
> On 2017-07-19 14:04:39 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Does that mean you're trying to rewrite it in the way that was
> suggested:

Not yet, but I'll try to do it.

> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> or are you planning to just let the issue leave be?
> 
> - Andres


-- 
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

Reply via email to