| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
| Date: | 2011-11-01 14:13:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4EAFFEA0.6010800@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/01/2011 09:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Why not leave it exactly as it is, and add a previous_query column?
>> That gives you exactly what you need without breaking anything.
> That would cost twice as much shared memory for query strings, and twice
> as much time to update the strings, for what seems pretty marginal
> value. I'm for just redefining the query field as "current or last
> query".
+1
> I could go either way on whether to rename it.
Rename it please. "current_query" will just be wrong. I'd be inclined
just to call it "query" or "query_string" and leave it to the docs to
define the exact semantics.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-11-01 14:15:57 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2011-11-01 14:07:20 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |