Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity.

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
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  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.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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.