| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_locks view versus prepared transactions |
| Date: | 2005-06-20 20:08:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20050620200843.GA9005@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:55:45PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > Ultimately we should maybe even remove PID from pg_locks, but probably
> > for backwards compatibility it'd have to be deprecated for a release
> > or two first.
>
> It is interesting to note that systems with stats disabled are unable to
> get lock owner information in this case (so what?).
We could make the pg_stat_activity view show information from the
ProcArray shared struct, when stats are disabled.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>)
"In fact, the basic problem with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not
crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by
the Conservation of Cruft Principle." (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-20 20:13:39 | Re: pg_locks view versus prepared transactions |
| Previous Message | Rohit Gaddi | 2005-06-20 19:58:47 | index selection by query planner |