Re: stats_block_level - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: stats_block_level
Date
Msg-id 20070727082913.GD2550@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: stats_block_level  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: stats_block_level
Re: stats_block_level
List 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.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes
Next
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: stats_block_level