Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about a collector deamon, fired up by the postmaster and
> receiving UDP packets from the backends. Under heavy load, it
> might miss some statistic messages, well, but that's not as
> bad as having locks causing backends to loose performance.
Interesting thought, but we don't want UDP I think; that just opens
up a whole can of worms about checking access permissions and so forth.
Why not a simple pipe? The postmaster creates the pipe and the
collector daemon inherits one end, while all the backends inherit the
other end.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
- [HACKERS] Performance monitor signal handler Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance monitor signal handler Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance monitor signal handler Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance monitor signal han... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance monitor signal... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance monitor s... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance monitor s... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance monit... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Jan Wieck
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Philip Warner
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Jan Wieck
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Performance m... Jan Wieck
