On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 04:03:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 01:52:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:35:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:11:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>>> If we were going to go down the path of periodically logging warnings > >>>> about old prepared transactions, some single-instance background task > >>>> like the checkpointer would be a better place to do the work in. But > >>>> I'm not really recommending that, because I agree with Robert that > >>>> we just plain don't want this functionality. > > > Sorry, I meant something in the Postgres logs at postmaster start. > > That seems strictly worse than periodic logging as far as the probability > that somebody will notice the log entry goes. In any case it would only > help people when they restart their postmaster, which ought to be pretty > infrequent in a production situation.
I thought if something was wrong, they might look at the server logs after a restart, or they might have a higher probability of having orphaned prepared transactions after a restart. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
