On 2019-Mar-23, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:04 AM Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Not count them if they're implementation details; otherwise count them. > > For example, IMO autovacuum transactions should definitely be counted > > (as one transaction, even if they run parallel vacuum). > > It appears to me that the definition of what we want to display in > xact_commit/xact_rollback (for pg_stat_database view) is slightly > vague. For ex. does it mean that we will show only transactions > started by the user or does it also includes the other transactions > started internally (which you call implementation detail) to perform > the various operations? I think users would be more interested in the > transactions initiated by them. Yes, you're probably right. > I think some users might also be interested in the write transactions > happened in the system, basically, those have consumed xid. Well, do they really want to *count* these transactions, or is it enough to keep an eye on the "age" of some XID column? Other than for XID freezing purposes, I don't see such internal transactions as very interesting. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
