| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction start in pg_stat_activity |
| Date: | 2006-11-20 16:25:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1164039911.3841.81.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 10:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Great idea. Would it be appropriate to show the time the current
> > snapshot was taken also/instead?
>
> There is no way we are putting a gettimeofday() call into
> GetSnapshotData. I thought you were focused on performance??
LOL.
My understanding was there was already a gettimeofday() call per
statement which is displayed in pg_stat_activity. It seems relatively
straightforward to have another column which is *not* updated for each
statement when we are in SERIALIZABLE mode and CommandId > 1.
So I wasn't talking about issuing any additional gettimeofday() calls at
all. :-)
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-20 16:30:04 | Re: [GENERAL] Shutting down a warm standby database in 8.2beta3 |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-11-20 16:23:09 | Re: [GENERAL] Shutting down a warm standby database in 8.2beta3 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-20 16:32:22 | Re: Transaction start in pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-11-20 15:58:02 | Re: Transaction start in pg_stat_activity |