"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> There is no "direct pipe connection" to the stats collector,
> I probably said that wrong, but how do backends get their stats data? They read it out of a flat file that the stats collector rewrites every so often. > Meaning, when I do a "select * from pg_stat_all_tables" how is the > backend getting that data. The reason I'm interested is that if I don't > have to fire up a backend just to check the stats that would reduce the > load associated with the autovacuum daemon. Is that really worth the loss of independence? I'm not sure one way or the other myself. I suppose the autovac daemon could still be run by hand for testing purposes, but it would have to run as user postgres and on the same machine as the postmaster. > Right, I think the overhead would be negligible. Since you seem to > think this is (or at least might be) a good idea, I will go ahead and > try to get the postmaster to fire-up the autovacuum daemon. So that the > 1st cut, will basically be pg_autovacuum exactly as it stands now, just > launched by the postmaster. > Also, you didn't mention if I will be able to use the backend logging > functions, I would guess that I can, but I'm not totally sure. Yes, if you are launched by the postmaster then you'd have access to its stderr etc, so you could just log via elog/ereport. Again though this puts you in a situation where the daemon *must* be launched by the postmaster or it won't work. How much arm's-length separation are you willing to give up? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly