Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Finding if old transactions are running...

From: jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Finding if old transactions are running...
Date: 2005-02-25 07:24:04
Message-ID: 18646. (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl writes:

> pg_locks certainly seems like a better solution.  Perhaps it didn't
> exist when you went with pg_stat_activity?  Can't recall offhand.

Neither do I...  But I do need something that will work with at least any
recent backend version--say, 7.2 or since.  The more the better, really. 
Any idea how old pg_locks is?

> Note that you still want to look for your old backend's PID; it seems
> impractically expensive to keep track of the current transaction's XID.
> (At a minimum that would cost another query per xact...)

Yes, I see now--I thought I had the transaction ID handy already anyway,
but I didn't.  Thanks.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: John HansenDate: 2005-02-25 08:31:33
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2005-02-25 07:08:29
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] UNICODE/UTF-8 on win32

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group