Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:10 AM, andres@anarazel.de <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I do think there's a considerable benefit in improving the
> instrumentation here, but his strikes me as making live more complex for
> more users than it makes it easier. At the very least this should be
> split into two fields (type & what we're actually waiting on). I also
> strongly suspect we shouldn't use in band signaling ("process not
> waiting"), but rather make the field NULL if we're not waiting on
> anything.

+1 for splitting it into two fields.

Regarding making the field NULL, someone (I think you) proposed
previously that we should have one field indicating whether we are
waiting, and a separate field (or two) indicating the current or most
recent wait event.  That would be similar to how
pg_stat_activity.{query,state} work.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company