| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: snapshot too old, configured by time |
| Date: | 2016-04-19 05:23:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQBiyN=L3WAzA15TaAhD3jrO2tbugcM3MUxrPehXid5hA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Or in short: this is a whole lot further than I'm prepared to go to
> satisfy one customer with a badly-designed application. And from what
> I can tell from the Feb 2015 discussion, that's what this has been
> written for.
This holds true. I imagine that a lot of people at least on this list
have already spent some time in tracking down long-running
transactions in someone's application and actually tuned the
application so as the bloat gets reduced and things perform better for
other transactions taking a shorter time. Without the need of this
feature.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2016-04-19 05:25:49 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-04-19 04:59:03 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |