Re: IDLE in transaction introspection

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.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".  I could go either way on whether to rename it.

If anyone's really hot about backward compatibility, it would not be
very hard to create a view that replicates the old behavior working
from a "state" column and a current-or-last-query column.
        regards, tom lane