Re: xact_start meaning when dealing with procedures? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jonathan S. Katz
Subject Re: xact_start meaning when dealing with procedures?
Date
Msg-id ECAFB052-8601-4BCA-B028-F12B69B67090@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: xact_start meaning when dealing with procedures?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: xact_start meaning when dealing with procedures?
List pgsql-hackers

On Aug 10, 2018, at 4:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 09/08/2018 20:25, Vik Fearing wrote:
On 09/08/18 20:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 09/08/2018 19:57, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
I just noticed that when I called a procedure that commits and rollbacks
- the xact_start in pg_stat_activity is not updated. Is it intentional?

It's an artifact of the way this is computed.  The reported transaction
timestamp is the timestamp of the first top-level statement of the
transaction.  This assumes that transactions contain statements, not the
other way around, like it is now possible.  I'm not sure what an
appropriate improvement would be here.

That would just mean that query_start would be older than xact_start,
but that's okay because the displayed query would be a CALL so we'll
know what's going on.

Note that this issue already exists for other commands that start
transactions internally, such as VACUUM and CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
At the moment, one should interpret xact_start as referring to the
top-level transaction only.

In practice, I think the value of xact_start versus query_start is to
anayze idle transactions.  This doesn't happen with internal
transactions, so it's not a big deal in practice.

This was added as an open item by Michael[1]. When the RMT discussed,
we were able to make arguments both ways (i.e. adjusting the behavior vs.
not).

Peter, from your analysis it sounds like we should leave it, but I wanted to
confirm before removing the open item.

Thanks,

Jonathan

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c