From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | konstantin knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_prepared_xact_status |
Date: | 2017-10-02 00:09:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobNLmRW-9FX0ajoaq69WYCncuoAafBzMWhHnjGfw+P8Gw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 2:10 AM, konstantin knizhnik
<k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> txid_status() also not always be able to return status of transaction (if wraparound happen).
> But it is still considered as one of the key features of 10 (transaction traceability...).
Not by me. It's a feature, though, for sure. It's also a LOT more
stable than what you're proposing. Even on a busy system, it takes a
while to go through 200 million transactions; you probably can't
realistically do that in under an hour, and you'll probably raise the
200 million transaction limit if you're anywhere close to that rate.
In practice, you'll almost always be able to look up transactions for
several days, and often weeks or months. With what you're proposing
here, the information could disappear nearly instantly. I can't see
how that works out to a usable feature.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-10-02 00:16:22 | Re: pg_prepared_xact_status |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2017-10-02 00:08:02 | Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw |