Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think this is unquestionably
>> a bug, at least for autovacuum's purposes --- though it might be OK
>> for the original intent of the stats system, which was simply to track
>> activity levels.
>> Any thoughts about how it ought to work?
> I don't remember exactly how it works -- I think the activity (insert,
> update, delete) counters are kept separately from commit/rollback
> status, right? Maybe we should keep three separate counters: "current
> transaction counters" and "counters for transactions that were
> aborted/committed". We only send the latter counts, and the former are
> added to them when the transaction ends.
My question was at a higher level, actually: *what* should we be
I think doubling the number of counters in the stats system, which is
what you seem to be proposing, is probably not acceptable --- we've
already got a problem with the stats file becoming unreasonably bulky.
We need to figure out exactly which counts there is adequate reason
to be tracking.
I don't, for instance, see any percentage in tracking block-level I/O
operations separately for committed and rolled-back transactions.
Those numbers are certainly things you watch only for total activity,
and a failed xact is just as much system load as a committed one.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-01-27 16:20:17|
|Subject: Re: Adding a --quiet option to initdb |
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2006-01-27 15:56:10|
|Subject: Re: Adding a --quiet option to initdb|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-01-27 16:01:59|
|Subject: Re: table is not a table |
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2006-01-27 15:53:38|
|Subject: Re: stats for failed transactions (was Re: [GENERAL] VACUUM Question)|