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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers