Gurjeet Singh wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > Gurjeet Singh <gurj...@singh.im> writes: > > > Please find attached the patch to send transaction commit/rollback stats > > to > > > stats collector unconditionally. > > > > That's intentional to reduce stats traffic. What kind of performance > > penalty does this patch impose? If the number of such transactions is > > large enough to create a noticeable jump in the counters, I would think > > that this would be a pretty darn expensive "fix".
> Presumably, on heavily used systems these transactions would form a small > fraction. On relatively idle systems these transactions may be a larger > fraction but that wouldn't affect the users since the database is not under > stress anyway. I'm not sure I understand the point of this whole thing. Realistically, how many transactions are there that do not access any database tables? If an application doesn't want to access stored data, why would it connect to the database in the first place? (I imagine you could use it to generate random numbers and such ...) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers