| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server? |
| Date: | 2020-04-21 20:03:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1939.1587499433@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 01:52:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:35:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:11:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> If we were going to go down the path of periodically logging warnings
>>>> about old prepared transactions, some single-instance background task
>>>> like the checkpointer would be a better place to do the work in. But
>>>> I'm not really recommending that, because I agree with Robert that
>>>> we just plain don't want this functionality.
> Sorry, I meant something in the Postgres logs at postmaster start.
That seems strictly worse than periodic logging as far as the probability
that somebody will notice the log entry goes. In any case it would only
help people when they restart their postmaster, which ought to be pretty
infrequent in a production situation.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-21 20:14:35 | Re: design for parallel backup |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-04-21 18:54:56 | Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server? |