Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
| От | Scott Mead |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKq0gvKCK67P7_DqetDUXQpHUMpKmYCg67WQsGopHDhf4FE2Xg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:13 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,+1 for doing it this way. Splitting "current_query" into "query" and
> that holds the idle/in transaction/running status, instead of the
> tools having to parse the query text to get that information...
"state" would be more elegant and easier to use all around.
I'm all for splitting it out actually. My concern was that I would break the 'ba-gillion' monitoring tools that already have support for pg_stat_activity if I dropped a column. What if we had:
'state' : idle | in transaction | running ( per Robert )
'current_query' : the most recent query (either last / currently running)
That may be a bit tougher to get across to people though (especially in the case where state='<IDLE>').
I'll rework this when I don't have trick-or-treaters coming to the front door :)
--
Scott Mead
OpenSCG http://www.openscg.com
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: