Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Uh - not much time to spend if the statistics should at least
> > be half accurate. And it would become worse in SMP systems.
> > So that was a nifty idea, but I think it'd cause much more
> > statistic losses than I assumed at first.
>
> > Back to drawing board. Maybe a SYS-V message queue can serve?
>
> That would be the same as a pipe: backends would block if the collector
> stopped accepting data. I do like the "auto discard" aspect of this
> UDP-socket approach.
Does a pipe guarantee that a buffer, written with one atomic
write(2), never can get intermixed with other data on the
readers end? I know that you know what I mean, but for the
broader audience: Let's define a message to the collector to
be 4byte-len,len-bytes. Now hundreds of backends hammer
messages into the (shared) writing end of the pipe, all with
different sizes. Is it GUARANTEED that a
read(4bytes),read(nbytes) sequence will allways return one
complete message and never intermixed parts of different
write(2)s?
With message queues, this is guaranteed. Also, message queues
would make it easy to query the collected statistics (see
below).
> I think Philip had the right idea: each backend should send totals,
> not deltas, in its messages. Then, it doesn't matter (much) if the
> collector loses some messages --- that just means that sometimes it
> has a slightly out-of-date idea about how much work some backends have
> done. It should be easy to design the software so that that just makes
> a small, transient error in the currently displayed statistics.
If we use two message queues (IPC_PRIVATE is enough here),
one into collector and one into backend direction, this'd be
an easy way to collect and query statistics.
The backends send delta stats messages to the collector on
one queue. Message queues block, by default, but the backend
could use IPC_NOWAIT and just go on and collect up, as long
as it finally will use a blocking call before exiting. We'll
loose statistics for backends that go down in flames
(coredump), but who cares for statistics then?
To query statistics, we have a set of new builtin functions.
All functions share a global statistics snapshot in the
backend. If on function call the snapshot doesn't exist or
was generated by another XACT/commandcounter, the backend
sends a statistics request for his database ID to the
collector and waits for the messages to arrive on the second
message queue. It can pick up the messages meant for him via
message type, which's equal to his backend number +1, because
the collector will send 'em as such. For table access stats
for example, the snapshot will have slots identified by the
tables OID, so a function pg_get_tables_seqscan_count(oid)
should be easy to implement. And setting up views that
present access stats in readable format is a nobrainer.
Now we have communication only between the backends and the
collector. And we're certain that only someone able to
SELECT from a system view will ever see this information.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
