Re: Reducing stats collection overhead

[Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>]

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> So I think that complicating the design with, say, a timeout counter to
> force out the stats after a sleep interval is not necessary. Doing so would
> add a couple of kernel calls to every client interaction so I'd really
> rather avoid that.
>
> Any thoughts, better ideas?

If we want to have an idle_in_statement_timeout then we'll need to introduce a
select loop instead of just directly blocking on recv anyways. Does that mean
we may as well bite the bullet now?

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com