Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevExUHxAULzq2G47nw8LMJeH2mnh=ApaVdo+32o4i5AOfPw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 2:31 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 05:47:09PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> We could I guess add a field specifically for temp_namespace_xid or such.
> The question is if it's worth the overhead to do that.
That would mean an extra 4 bytes in PGPROC, which is something we
could live with, still the use-case looks rather narrow to me to
justify that.
It does, tha'ts why I questioned if it's worth it. But, thinking some more about it, some other options would be:
1. This is only set once per backend in normal operations, right? (Unless I go drop the schema manually, but that's not exactly normal). So maybe we could invent a pg stat message and send the information through the collector? Since it doesn't have to be frequently updated, like your typical backend_xmin.
2. Or probably even better, just put it in PgBackendStatus? Overhead here is a lot cheaper than PGPROC.
ISTM 2 is probably the most reasonable option here?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: