Re: procpid?
От | Jim Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: procpid? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20F32433-0535-475F-915C-35DA2E47DAF0@nasby.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: procpid? (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Greg Smith wrote: > -A case could be made for making some of these state fields null, instead true or false, in situations where the sessionis not visible. If you don't have rights to see the connection activity, setting idle, idle_transaction, and activeall to null may be the right thing to do. More future bikeshedding is likely on this part, once an initial patch isready for testing. I'd want to get some specific tests against the common monitoring goals of tools like check_postgresand the Munin plug-in to see which implementation makes more sense for them as input on that. ISTM this should be driven by what data we actually expose. If we're willing to expose actual information for idle, idle_transactionand waiting for backends that you don't have permission to see the query for, then we should expose the actualinformation (I personally think this would be useful). OTOH, if we are not willing to expose that information, then we should certainly set those fields to null instead of somedefault value. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: