Re: proposal: add 'waiting for replication' to pg_stat_activity.state
| От | Craig Ringer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: proposal: add 'waiting for replication' to pg_stat_activity.state |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMsr+YFiUNqz5FC0f8q1c=VrFvpofisWa8aW+uZDtM5vMsPk5Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: proposal: add 'waiting for replication' to pg_stat_activity.state (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: proposal: add 'waiting for replication' to pg_stat_activity.state
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 3 December 2015 at 09:32, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
On 12/2/15 7:00 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I notice that you don't set the 'waiting' flag. 'waiting' is presently
> documented as:
>
> <entry>True if this backend is currently waiting on a lock</entry>
>
> ... but I'm inclined to just widen its definition and set it here, since
> we most certainly are waiting, and the column isn't named
> 'waiting_on_a_lock'. It shouldn't upset various canned lock monitoring
> queries people have since they generally do an inner join on pg_locks
> anyway.
I'm not so sure about that assumption.
Even if it's an outer join, the worst that'll happen is that they'll get entries with nulls in pg_locks. I don't think it's worth worrying about too much.
We could always mitigate it by adding a pg_lock_status view to the system catalogs with a decent canned query over pg_stat_activity and pg_locks, so people can stop copying & pasting from the wiki or using buggy homebrew queries ;)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: