Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound
Date
Msg-id CABUevEwxHZ0_yHnPm=GqHQgEPfMd2-J1hGu9TaFGtFaFWPFNRA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Reaping Temp tables to avoid XID wraparound  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:41 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 09:56:28AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2. Or probably even better, just put it in PgBackendStatus? Overhead here
> is a lot cheaper than PGPROC.
>
> ISTM 2 is probably the most reasonable option here?

Yes, I forgot this one.  That would be more consistent, even if the
information can be out of date quickly we don't care here.

I think it would be something like the attached. Thoughts?

I did the "insert column in the middle of pg_stat_get_activity", I'm not sure that is right -- how do we treate that one? Do we just append at the end because people are expected to use the pg_stat_activity view? It's a nontrivial part of the patch.

That one aside, does the general way to track it appear reasonable? (docs excluded until we have agreement on that)

And should we also expose the oid in pg_stat_activity in this case, since we have it?
 
--
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: FOP warnings about id attributes in title tags
Next
From: Euler Taveira
Date:
Subject: Re: psql show URL with help