From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |
Date: | 2016-03-11 04:16:25 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAthCZZKRwR-+EGbf_SXJBMTVMGj0qMWt312Yg8AbcHdA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
2016-03-11 0:17 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Or ... maybe this is intentional behavior? Now that I think about it,
> > doesn't each backend cache this info the first time its transaction
> > reads the data?
>
> Your view of pg_stat_activity is supposed to hold still within a
> transaction, yes. Otherwise it'd be really painful to do any complicated
> joins. I think there may be a function to explicitly flush the cache,
> if you really need to see intratransaction changes.
>
I understand.
This behave has impact on PL functions that try to repeated check of
pg_stat_activity. But this use case is not frequent.
Thank you.
Regards
Pavel
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-03-11 04:19:53 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-11 04:14:56 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-11 04:16:26 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-11 04:14:56 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |