| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 03:49:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20230128034917.ldbvnmxsjzoigk6r@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-01-27 22:39:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2023-01-28 11:38:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> FWIW, my vote goes for a more expensive but reliable function even in
> >> stable branches.
>
> > I very strenuously object. If we make txid_current() (by way of
> > pg_current_xact_id()) flush WAL, we'll cause outages.
>
> What are you using it for, that you don't care whether the answer
> is trustworthy?
It's quite commonly used as part of trigger based replication tools (IIRC
that's its origin), monitoring, as part of client side logging, as part of
snapshot management.
txid_current() predates pg_xact_status() by well over 10 years. Clearly we had
lots of uses for it before pg_xact_status() was around.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2023-01-28 03:57:35 | Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-28 03:42:47 | Re: lockup in parallel hash join on dikkop (freebsd 14.0-current) |