| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived |
| Date: | 2016-02-04 20:19:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20160204201911.flztccu5vqjt2hyo@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-02-04 22:24:50 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> But, IIRC, one of the problems that prevent the adoption of this feature is
> the addition of gettimeofday() call after every SQL command receipt.
> Have you already resolved that problem? Or we don't need to care about
> it because it's almost harmless?
Well, it only happens when the feature is enabled, not
unconditionally. So I don't think that's particularly bad, as long as
the feature is not enabled by default.
If we feel we need to something about the gettimeofday() call at some
point, I think it'd made a lot of sense to introduce a more centralize
"statement stop" time, and an extended pgstat_report_activity() that
allows to specify the timestamp. Because right now we'll essentially do
gettimeofday() calls successively when starting a command, starting a
transaction, committing a transaction, and finishing a comment. That's
pretty pointless.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-02-04 21:37:46 | Re: "using previous checkpoint record at" maybe not the greatest idea? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-04 20:06:45 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |