Re: Add sub-transaction overflow status in pg_stat_activity
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-11-23T19:01:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:09:57AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I think I fundamentally disagree with the idea that we should refuse > to expose instrumentation data because some day the internals might > change. If we accepted that argument categorically, we wouldn't have > things like backend_xmin or backend_xid in pg_stat_activity, or wait > events either, but we do have those things and users find them useful. > They suck in the sense that you need to know quite a bit about how the > internals work in order to use them to find problems, but people who > want to support production PostgreSQL instances have to learn about > how those internals work one way or the other because they > demonstrably matter. It is absolutely stellar when we can say "hey, we I originally thought having this value in pg_stat_activity was overkill, but seeing the other internal/warning columns in that view, I think it makes sense. Oddly, is our 64 snapshot performance limit even documented anywhere? I know it is in Simon's patch I am working on. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson
Commits
-
Fix comment that was missing a word.
- eb60eb08a95e 16.0 landed
-
Expose some information about backend subxact status.
- 10ea0f924a27 16.0 landed