| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl |
| Cc: | "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 06:31:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1989.1109313060@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl writes:
> Tom, I believe you said at the time that I should check pg_stat_activity.
> My current code polls it for the old backend pid. But if that is neither
> 100% reliable nor unconditionally available, wouldn't it be better if I
> just queried pg_locks for the transaction's ID? Would that work for all
> backend versions I can expect to see?
pg_locks certainly seems like a better solution. Perhaps it didn't
exist when you went with pg_stat_activity? Can't recall offhand.
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...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-02-25 06:47:39 | Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent |
| Previous Message | jtv | 2005-02-25 06:22:23 | Re: Finding if old transactions are running... |