On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 9:55 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> writes: > > Like many I previously had to investigate a slowdown due to > sub-transaction > > overflow, and even with the information available in a monitoring view > (I had > > to rely on a quick hackish extension as I couldn't patch postgres) it's > not > > terribly fun to do this way. On top of that log analyzers like pgBadger > could > > help to highlight such a problem. > > It feels to me like far too much effort is being invested in fundamentally > the wrong direction here. If the subxact overflow business is causing > real-world performance problems, let's find a way to fix that, not put > effort into monitoring tools that do little to actually alleviate anyone's > pain. >
I don't think it is really a big effort or big change. But I completely agree with you that if we can completely resolve this issue then there is no point in providing any such status or LOG. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
