On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On November 19, 2015 8:09:38 AM PST, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev >><i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >>> The moving base tranches to shared memory has been discussed many >>times. >>> The point is using them later in pg_stat_activity and other >>monitoring >>> views. >> >>I'm not in agreement with this idea. Actually, I'd prefer that the >>tranches live in backend-private memory, not shared memory, so that we >>could for example add backend-local counters to them if desired. > > I don't buy that argument. It'd be nearly trivial to have a > backend_tranchestats array, indexed by the tranche id, for such counters.
Hmm, true. > It's really not particularly convenient to allocate tranches right now. You > have to store at least the identifier in shared memory and then redo the > registration in each process. Otherwise some processes can't identify them. > Which of rather inconvenient of you want to register some at runtime Sure, that's why we're proposing to use an enum or a list of #defines for that. I don't see a need to do any more than that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
