From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pinker <pinker(at)onet(dot)eu>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: unreliable behaviour of track_functions |
Date: | 2018-04-01 04:08:01 |
Message-ID: | d2e4fe1a-0e72-9cab-228a-d7068ee5712d@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 03/31/2018 05:17 PM, pinker wrote:
> Adrian Klaver-4 wrote
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/monitoring-stats.html#PG-STAT-USER-FUNCTIONS-VIEW
>>
>> "...But if you want to see new results with each query, be sure to do
>> the queries outside any transaction block. Alternatively, you can invoke
>> pg_stat_clear_snapshot(), which will discard the current transaction's
>> statistics snapshot (if any). The next use of statistical information
>> will cause a new snapshot to be fetched.
>>
>> A transaction can also see its own statistics (as yet untransmitted to
>> the collector) in the views pg_stat_xact_all_tables,
>> pg_stat_xact_sys_tables, pg_stat_xact_user_tables, and
>> pg_stat_xact_user_functions. These numbers do not act as stated above;
>> instead they update continuously throughout the transaction.
>>
>> "
>> Adrian Klaver
>
>> adrian.klaver@
>
>
> Thank you for that, but does this strange behaviour should not be better
> documented?
This came from the documentation, so I am not sure what you mean by
better documented?
> If somebody (like me, I have some time ago being unaware of this behaviour)
> wants to build a monitoring system that base on the view
> pg_stat_user_functions, should not be informed what to expect?
See comment above.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-general-f1843780.html
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Raghavendra Rao J S V | 2018-04-01 04:56:32 | Please suggest the best suited unit test frame work for postgresql database. |
Previous Message | pinker | 2018-04-01 00:17:22 | Re: unreliable behaviour of track_functions |