On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 12:57:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:03:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Well, the thing is, we've pretty much had it handed to us that > > >> current-command indicators that aren't up to date are not very useful. > > >> So rate-limited updates strike me as a useless compromise. > > > > > I don't get your argument - ps auxww is never going to be 100% > > > up-to-date because during the time the command is running the status > > > may change. > > > > Of course. But we have already done the update-once-every-half-second > > bit --- that was how pg_stat_activity used to work --- and our users > > made clear that it's not good enough. So I don't see us expending > > significant effort to convert the setproctitle code path to that > > approach. The clear way of the future for expensive-setproctitle > > platforms is just to turn it off entirely and rely on the new > > pg_stat_activity implementation. > > 8.3 will modify less memory to update the process title than happened in > the past --- perhaps that will reduce the overhead, but I doubt it. You > can test CVS HEAD to check it.
Yeah, this is not relevant for BSD, it uses a syscall to set it (which is why it has high overhead) instead of just modifying user memory. Kris
Description: PGP signature