| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(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: | 2011-11-04 16:46:07 |
| Message-ID: | CABRT9RBMruWf1nCxpikDfoq0DKQL-sAo+3WXjSAgeQoMKc7C8Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 15:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> writes:
>> While we're already breaking everything, we could remove the "waiting"
>> column and use a state with value 'waiting' instead.
> -1 ... I think it's useful to see the underlying state as well as the
> waiting flag. Also, this would represent breakage of part of the API
> that doesn't need to be broken.
Well the waiting column can stay. My concern is that listing lock-wait
backends as 'running' will be misleading for users. pg_stat_activity
is a pretty common starting point for debugging problems and if
there's a new column that says a query is 'running', then I'm afraid
the current waiting 't' and 'f' values will be too subtle for users to
notice. (I find that it's too subtle already now, if you don't know
what you're looking for).
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-11-04 16:54:38 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-04 15:18:45 | Re: heap_page_prune comments |