Merlin Moncure escribió:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why do we _have_ to write the file to disk? I wonder if it would work
> > to store the file in a mmaped memory region and have the readers get
> > data from there. We could have more than
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> If you are willing to run a hand-hacked version then I'd suggest doing
>> your experimentation with CVS HEAD. There are changes in place already
>> to reduce the stats file traffic.
>
> Why do we _hav
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are MAP_SHARED | MAP_ANONYMOUS mmapped regions portable?
No.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsq
Tom Lane wrote:
> If you are willing to run a hand-hacked version then I'd suggest doing
> your experimentation with CVS HEAD. There are changes in place already
> to reduce the stats file traffic.
Why do we _have_ to write the file to disk? I wonder if it would work
to store the file in a mmap
Siddharth Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have found pgstat.stat file taking too much write hits.
> As my need to deploy on flash based storage. I don't want higher I/O's
> To stop status collector process I have change postmaster.c by removing
> calls of pgstat.c
> Now every thing is working
Hello,
I have started to explore PG,
I have found pgstat.stat file taking too much write hits.
As my need to deploy on flash based storage. I don't want higher I/O's
To stop status collector process I have change postmaster.c by removing
calls of pgstat.c
Now every thing is working fine, Sta
