Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e2ad8aaf-e1d8-499e-4de0-e3616f8d908d@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures
Re: transction_timestamp() inside of procedures |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 26/09/2018 23:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 26/09/2018 17:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> What could be the use for the transaction timestamp? I think one of the >> most important uses (at least in pg_stat_activity) is to verify that >> transactions are not taking excessively long time to complete; that's >> known to cause all sorts of trouble in Postgres, and probably other >> DBMSs too. If we don't accurately measure what it really is, and >> instead keep the compatibility behavior, we risk panicking people >> because they think some transaction has been running for a long time >> when in reality it's just a very long procedure which commits frequently >> enough not to be a problem. > > That's certainly a good argument. Note that if we implemented that the > transaction timestamp is advanced inside procedures, that would also > mean that the transaction timestamp as observed in pg_stat_activity > would move during VACUUM, for example. That might or might not be > desirable. Attached is a rough implementation. I'd be mildly in favor of doing this, but we have mentioned tradeoffs in this thread. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: