| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add sub-transaction overflow status in pg_stat_activity |
| Date: | 2022-03-21 23:45:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20220321234519.2hevpgjwzqtbmg3e@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-01-14 11:25:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Like many I previously had to investigate a slowdown due to sub-transaction
> > overflow, and even with the information available in a monitoring view (I had
> > to rely on a quick hackish extension as I couldn't patch postgres) it's not
> > terribly fun to do this way. On top of that log analyzers like pgBadger could
> > help to highlight such a problem.
>
> It feels to me like far too much effort is being invested in fundamentally
> the wrong direction here. If the subxact overflow business is causing
> real-world performance problems, let's find a way to fix that, not put
> effort into monitoring tools that do little to actually alleviate anyone's
> pain.
There seems to be some agreement on this (I certainly do agree). Thus it seems
we should mark the CF entry as rejected?
It's been failing on cfbot for weeks... https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5289336424890368?logs=docs_build#L347
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-03-21 23:49:24 | Re: TAP output format in pg_regress |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-03-21 23:35:41 | Re: PoC: using sampling to estimate joins / complex conditions |