On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 9:50 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2019-Mar-23, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > 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. >
That's what I also had in mind. I think doing anything more than just fixing the count for the parallel cooperating transaction by parallel workers doesn't seem intuitive to me. I mean if we want we can commit the fix such that all supporting transactions by parallel worker shouldn't be counted, but I am not able to convince myself that that is the good fix. Instead, I think rather than fixing that one case we should think more broadly about all the supportive transactions happening in the various operations. Also, as that is a kind of behavior change, we should discuss that as a separate topic. I know what I am proposing here won't completely fix the problem Hari is facing, but I am not sure what else we can do here which doesn't create some form of inconsistency with other parts of the system. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
