From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_locks view versus prepared transactions |
Date: | 2005-06-20 19:55:45 |
Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3415C2B25@Herge.rcsinc.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I think the minimum thing we ought to do about this is add an XID
> column to pg_locks to show the transaction ID holding each lock.
> Then you could join that to pg_prepared_xacts to see what's what.
> I was also wondering about adding a current-XID column to
> pg_stat_activity, and encouraging people to join pg_locks and
> pg_stat_activity on XID instead of PID.
That would be awesome. Is there any performance penalty to do this? (I
don't care about performance of pg_lock_status function execution, just
overall overhead).
> Ultimately we should maybe even remove PID from pg_locks, but probably
> for backwards compatibility it'd have to be deprecated for a release
> or two first.
It is interesting to note that systems with stats disabled are unable to
get lock owner information in this case (so what?).
Merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rohit Gaddi | 2005-06-20 19:58:47 | index selection by query planner |
Previous Message | Rohit Gaddi | 2005-06-20 19:48:33 | index selection by query planner |