Re: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VS query mean time

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VS query mean time
Date: 2019-03-22 12:41:30
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob3w3WmNLV88ck7B3an0VX-Hr+J=bsg_LP3yjCQV5_j-w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 12:34 AM Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > And then you have to decide what to do about other background
> > transactions.
>
> Not count them if they're implementation details; otherwise count them.
> For example, IMO autovacuum transactions should definitely be counted
> (as one transaction, even if they run parallel vacuum).

Hmm, interesting. autovacuum isn't an implementation detail?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-03-22 12:43:07 Re: insensitive collations
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2019-03-22 12:41:06 Re: Special role for subscriptions