Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user
Date: 2010-06-02 23:49:00
Message-ID: AANLkTilWwMb2Q-fAFTS7KK5Ep8t7Szndd5bvTkItswEk@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:
> It would make it easy to conclude:
>
>   "This next transaction did 8328194 updates.  Maybe we should do
>   some kind of checkpoint (e.g. - commit transaction or such) before
>   working on it."
>
>    versus
>
>   "This transaction we're thinking of working on had 7 updates.  No
>   big deal..."

I'm puzzled how you would define this value. How do you add 7 inserts,
7 deletes, and 7 updates? Is that 21 rows modified? Why are the 7
inserts and 7 deletes worth twice as much as the 7 updates when
they're basically the same thing? What if the inserts fired triggers
which inserted 7 more rows, is that 14? What if the 7 updates modified
2 TB of TOAST data but the 8238194 updates were all to the same record
and they were all HOT updates so all it did was change 8kB?

In any case you'll have all the actual data from your triggers or
hooks or whatever so what value does having the system keep track of
this add?

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-06-03 00:28:13 Re: Allow wal_keep_segments to keep all segments
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-06-02 23:22:51 Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages