<div dir="ltr">Not sure I was clear enough. The goal is to find out what the read/write/tx profile of the application is as if slony wasn't there. <div><br></div><div>If your intent was to suggest that if we aggregated slony stats so that we could subsequently use them to get the net statistics then yes, this would work</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>Dave Cramer</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 July 2014 12:53, Christopher Browne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cbbrowne@afilias.info" target="_blank">cbbrowne@afilias.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hmm. I'd thought that there were I/U/D stats captured in the logs (which, I observe, you think isn't entirely suitable).<div><br></div><div>A look at HEAD is showing that there's a struct in src/slon/remote_worker.c called PerfMon that seems like it's intended for this sort of thing.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sadly, the code for this seems to have experienced a bit of bit-rot, notably in that the struct includes some "Big Tuple" stats that are obsolete as of Slony 2.2.</div><div><br></div><div>Further, it only does *any* reporting at logging level DEBUG1, and you'd need for it to *always* report at that level to get any data, again, in the logs, which you weren't keen on. (And I'll accept that; it's not nice for it to need to be captured that way.)<br>
<br>There's something not quite right about this activity being solely considered as "debugging" activity that shouldn't be reported unless you're "debugging something."</div><div><br></div>
<div>It seems to warrant a bit of brainstorming. </div><div><br></div><div>I imagine it a neat idea to capture some data about levels of activity in a Slony table, thus, at the end of a SYNC, we might write out a tuple with some of this data into a wee table, and aggregate it somewhere before the cleanup thread cleans up the "detailed" data.</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>