From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch to send transaction commit/rollback stats to the stats collector unconditionally. |
Date: | 2014-03-19 23:27:52 |
Message-ID: | 12754.1395271672@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not sure I understand the point of this whole thing. Realistically,
> how many transactions are there that do not access any database tables?
I think that something like "select * from pg_stat_activity" might not
bump any table-access counters, once the relevant syscache entries had
gotten loaded. You could imagine that a monitoring app would do a long
series of those and nothing else (whether any actually do or not is a
different question).
But still, it's a bit hard to credit that this patch is solving any real
problem. Where's the user complaints about the existing behavior?
That is, even granting that anybody has a workload that acts like this,
why would they care ... and are they prepared to take a performance hit
to avoid the counter jump after the monitoring app exits?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-03-19 23:32:58 | Re: Review: plpgsql.extra_warnings, plpgsql.extra_errors |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-03-19 22:57:26 | Re: jsonb status |