Re: IDLE in transaction introspection

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Marti Raudsepp
Тема Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Дата
Msg-id CABRT9RBMruWf1nCxpikDfoq0DKQL-sAo+3WXjSAgeQoMKc7C8Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: IDLE in transaction introspection  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: IDLE in transaction introspection  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 15:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.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


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: heap_page_prune comments
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf