Re: stats_block_level
| От | Alvaro Herrera |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: stats_block_level |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20070727082913.GD2550@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: stats_block_level (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: stats_block_level
Re: stats_block_level |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > Any reason not to just fold them both into stats_start_collector ? > > > > Well, then you couldn't turn collection on and off without restarting > > the postmaster, which might be a pain. > > Maybe we don't actually need stats_start_collector, but instead we start > it always and just have one knob to turn collection on and off. I'm > not sure whether the extra process would bother people if they're not > collecting, but we have so many extra processes now, why would anyone > care. I agree. Let's remove stats_start_collector and merge the other two into a single setting. Anything more than that is overkill. Having a single idle process is not a problem to anyone. It just sleeps all the time. We are all used to having six useless getty processes and nobody cares. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: