Re: ps_status on fastpath

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ps_status on fastpath
Date: 2010-12-17 19:19:47
Message-ID: 1292612159-sup-8021@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie dic 17 12:41:06 -0300 2010:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > I noticed that the fastpath code doesn't update ps_status, which would
> > be harmless except that it leads to "idle in transaction" being logged
> > in log_line_prefix for the command tag.
>
> > Are there objections to applying this?
>
> Hm, what about pgstat_report_activity()?

I wasn't sure about that, because of the overhead, but now that I look
at it, it's supposed to be cheaper than changing the ps_status in some
cases, so I guess there's no harm.

The other argument to support the case that this should be done is that
the docs suggest that you should use prepared statements instead, which
do have the reporting overhead.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-17 19:22:35 Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-12-17 19:19:11 Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST