Re: stats_block_level
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: stats_block_level |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46A9B7BA.8010303@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: stats_block_level ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: stats_block_level
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 04:29 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> 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. > > Yes, thats a great plan. > It gets my vote. /D
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: