In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Bruce Momjian"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem I see with the shared memory idea is that some of the
information needed may be quite large. For example, query strings can
be very long. Do we just allocate 512 bytes and clip off the rest. And
as I add more info, I need more shared memory per backend. I just liked
the file system dump solution because I could modify it pretty easily,
and because the info only appears when you click on the process, it
doesn't happen often.
Of course, if we start getting the full display partly from each
backend, we will have to use shared memory.
Long-term, perhaps a monitor server (like Sybase ASE uses) might
be a reasonable approach. That way, only one process (and a well-
regulated one at that) would be accessing the shared memory, which
should make it safer and have less of an impact performance-wise
if semaphores are needed to regulate access to the various regions
of shared memory.
Then, 1-N clients may access the monitor server to get performance
data w/o impacting the backends.
Gordon.
--
It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster.
-- Greg LeMond
---(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
