| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression |
| Date: | 2023-01-28 02:57:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20230128025758.h47sg4cpgjz4v3s2@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-01-27 16:15:08 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> It would be pg_current_xact_id() that would have to pay the cost of
> the WAL flush, not pg_xact_status() itself, but yeah that's what the
> patch does (with some optimisations). I guess one question is whether
> there are any other reasonable real world uses of
> pg_current_xact_id(), other than the original goal[1].
txid_current() is a lot older than pg_current_xact_id(), and they're backed by
the same code afaict. 8.4 I think.
Unfortunately txid_current() is used in plenty montiring setups IME.
I don't think it's a good idea to make a function that was quite cheap for 15
years, suddenly be several orders of magnitude more expensive...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2023-01-28 03:07:40 | Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-28 02:55:05 | Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs |