Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server?

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 4:43 AM Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > My real question is whether vacuum should be preemptively complaining
> about prepared transactions or stale replication slots rather than waiting
> for transaction id to exceed the safe limit. I presume by the time safe
> limit is exceeded, vacuum's work would already have been significantly
> impacted.
>
> Yeah, for my part, I agree that letting things go until the point
> where VACUUM starts to complain is usually bad. Generally, you want to
> know a lot sooner. That being said, I think the solution to that is to
> run a monitoring tool, not to overload the autovacuum worker with
> additional duties.
>

So is the concern performance overhead rather than the need for such a
feature?

Any server running with prepared transactions enabled, more likely than
not, requires a monitoring tool for tracking orphaned prepared
transactions. For such environments, surely the overhead created by such a
feature implemented in the server will create a lower overhead than their
monitoring tool.

>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

--
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca
ADDR: 10318 WHALLEY BLVD, Surrey, BC
CELL：+923335449950 EMAIL: mailto:hamid(dot)akhtar(at)highgo(dot)ca
SKYPE: engineeredvirus