Re: IDLE in transaction introspection

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "Andrew Dunstan *EXTERN*" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Date: 2011-11-10 18:55:59
Message-ID: 11938.1320951359@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> It might be cleaner to use booleans:
> active: t/f
> in transaction: t/f

I don't think so, because that makes some very strict assumptions that
there are exactly four interesting states (an assumption that isn't
even true today, to judge by the activity strings we're using now).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-11-10 19:00:33 Re: pg_dump 9.1.1 hanging (collectSecLabels gets 0 labels)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-11-10 18:33:51 Re: IDLE in transaction introspection