| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA(at)sqlexec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "dave(at)davebolt(dot)co(dot)uk" <dave(at)davebolt(dot)co(dot)uk>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "mustafa(dot)pekgoz(at)forenda(dot)com(dot)tr" <mustafa(dot)pekgoz(at)forenda(dot)com(dot)tr>, Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: equivalent of @@TRANCOUNT PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2021-05-29 15:01:10 |
| Message-ID: | 2045693.1622300470@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
MichaelDBA <MichaelDBA(at)sqlexec(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think so, it's not current active transactions, but number of
> active transactions on the CURRENT CONNECTION.
Isn't that a constant 1? We don't do multiple active transactions
in one session.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-05-29 15:08:16 | Re: equivalent of @@TRANCOUNT PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-05-29 14:51:04 | Re: equivalent of @@TRANCOUNT PostgreSQL |