| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | James Sewell <james(dot)sewell(at)jirotech(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Max connections reached without max connections reached |
| Date: | 2021-12-03 15:32:03 |
| Message-ID: | 2293661.1638545523@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 9:35 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think there is no such view or anything which tells about which
>> backend or transaction has more than 64 sub transaction. But if we
>> are ready to modify the code then we can LOG that information in
>> GetNewTransactionId(), when first time we are marking it overflown.
> I have prepared a small patch to log this information.
Putting an elog call into GetNewTransactionId seems like a completely
horrid idea from a performance standpoint. Especially if you put it
inside the XidGenLock hold, where it can block the entire system not just
the one process. But even without that, this seems like a performance
penalty with basically no real-world benefit. People who have issues
like this are not going to want to trawl the postmaster log for such
messages.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2021-12-03 16:00:53 | Re: libpq: Which functions may hang due to network issues? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-03 15:15:36 | Re: SUM() of INTERVAL type produces INTERVAL with no precision |