Re: pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZMeb0w9g0oCP88MGvdVFaO+gqRsxrA=szChrvzQwgsBQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
Re: pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> OTOH, new function enables users to monitor the delay as a timestamp.
> For users, a timestamp is obviously easier to handle than LSN, and the delay
> as a timestamp is more intuitive. So, I think that it's worth adding
> something like pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp into core for improvement
> of user-friendness.

It seems very nice from a usability point of view, but I have to agree
with Simon's concern about performance.  Actually, as of today,
WALInsertLock is such a gigantic bottleneck that I suspect the
overhead of this additional bookkeeping would be completely
unnoticeable.  But I'm still reluctant to add more centralized
spinlocks that everyone has to fight over, having recently put a lot
of effort into getting rid of some of the ones we've traditionally
had.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marti Raudsepp
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't truncate integer part in to_char for 'FM99.'
Next
From: Aidan Van Dyk
Date:
Subject: Re: postgresql.conf archive_command example