Re: procpid?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: procpid?
Date: 2011-06-16 19:36:22
Message-ID: 1308252949-sup-4754@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Excerpts from Greg Sabino Mullane's message of jue jun 16 15:33:35 UTC 2011:
>
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> >> Or perhaps pg_connections. Yes, +1 to making things fully backwards
> >> compatible by keeping pg_stat_activity around but making a better
> >> designed and better named table (view/SRF/whatever).
>
> > I thought about that too when reading the thread the first time, but
> > "pg_stat_sessions" sounds better. Our documentation also primarily refers to a
> > database connection as a "session", i think.
>
> No, this is clearly connections, not sessions. At least based on the items
> in the postgresql.conf file, especially max_connections (probably one of the
> items most closely associated with pg_stat_activity)

That doesn't include autovacuum, though, whereas the new view would.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

  • Re: procpid? at 2011-06-16 15:33:35 from Greg Sabino Mullane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2011-06-16 19:46:16 Re: Nested CASE-WHEN scoping
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-06-16 19:33:58 Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch