| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: procpid? |
| Date: | 2011-06-11 05:02:13 |
| Message-ID: | 627AD90C-E334-4828-93FC-78CCDABF26FF@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Can someone explain why pg_stat_activity has a column named procpid and
>> not simply pid? 'pid' is that pg_locks uses, and 'procpid' is redundant
>> (proc-process-id). A mistake?
>
> Well, we refer to the slots that backends use as "procs" (really
> PGPROC), so I'm guessing that this was intended to mean "the pid
> associated with the proc". It might not be the greatest name but I
> can't see changing it now.
It's damn annoying... enough so that I'd personally be in favor of creating a pid column that has the same data so we can deprecate procpid and eventually remove it...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-06-11 05:09:45 | Re: Core Extensions relocation |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2011-06-11 05:00:19 | Re: literature on write-ahead logging |