Re: Add sub-transaction overflow status in pg_stat_activity
Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, "Bossart,
Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>,
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-01-17T03:59:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 9:55 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes: > > Like many I previously had to investigate a slowdown due to > sub-transaction > > overflow, and even with the information available in a monitoring view > (I had > > to rely on a quick hackish extension as I couldn't patch postgres) it's > not > > terribly fun to do this way. On top of that log analyzers like pgBadger > could > > help to highlight such a problem. > > It feels to me like far too much effort is being invested in fundamentally > the wrong direction here. If the subxact overflow business is causing > real-world performance problems, let's find a way to fix that, not put > effort into monitoring tools that do little to actually alleviate anyone's > pain. > I don't think it is really a big effort or big change. But I completely agree with you that if we can completely resolve this issue then there is no point in providing any such status or LOG. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Fix comment that was missing a word.
- eb60eb08a95e 16.0 landed
-
Expose some information about backend subxact status.
- 10ea0f924a27 16.0 landed