Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEy3g6iQ_0d2_vAgrMnwH2Byv8z0mV6heUCBMiHn_LPMmw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 13:19, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> Actually, for the future, it might be useful to have a "state" column, >>> that holds the idle/in transaction/running status, instead of the >>> tools having to parse the query text to get that information... >> >> +1 for doing it this way. Splitting "current_query" into "query" and >> "state" would be more elegant and easier to use all around. > > 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 be the backwards compatible way I suggested. That said, I think there's still value in exposing a "state" column, and to encourage people not to rely on the text in the query column. Then you can add it to your list of things to remove in 10.0 :-) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: