Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> 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?
I think that something like "select * from pg_stat_activity" might not
bump any table-access counters, once the relevant syscache entries had
gotten loaded. You could imagine that a monitoring app would do a long
series of those and nothing else (whether any actually do or not is a
different question).
But still, it's a bit hard to credit that this patch is solving any real
problem. Where's the user complaints about the existing behavior?
That is, even granting that anybody has a workload that acts like this,
why would they care ... and are they prepared to take a performance hit
to avoid the counter jump after the monitoring app exits?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
