From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2021-12-17 03:30:04 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-sgGX6VGjcJPCE3xcOOpp0k1mJKODBKS4h9xz+AMx7S7A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 3:57 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 12/13/21, 6:30 AM, "Dilip Kumar" <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 11:11 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Since I think this field is usually not interesting to most users of
> >> pg_stat_activity, maybe this should instead be implemented as a function like
> >> pg_backend_get_subxact_status(pid).
> >>
> >> People who want to could use it like:
> >> SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity psa, pg_backend_get_subxact_status(pid) sub;
> >
> > I have provided two function, one for subtransaction counts and other
> > whether subtransaction cache is overflowed or not, we can use like
> > this, if we think this is better way to do it then we can also add
> > another function for the lastOverflowedXid
>
> The general approach looks good to me. I think we could have just one
> function for all three values, though.
If we create just one function then the output type will be a tuple
then we might have to add another view on top of that. Is there any
better way to do that?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-12-17 03:31:14 | Re: Add sub-transaction overflow status in pg_stat_activity |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-17 03:17:58 | Re: Allow DELETE to use ORDER BY and LIMIT/OFFSET |