Jim Nasby <j...@nasby.net> writes:
> Dumb question: Is this something that could be solved by having the
> postmaster track this information in it's local memory and make it available
> via a variable-sized IPC mechanism, such as a port or socket? That would
> eliminate the need to clean things up after a crash; I'm not sure if there
> would be other benefits.
Involving the postmaster in this is entirely *not* reasonable. The
postmaster cannot do anything IPC-wise that the stats collector couldn't
do, and every additional function we load onto the postmaster is another
potential source of unrecoverable database-wide failures. The PM is
reliable only because it doesn't do much.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
