Re: Order of pg_stat_activity timestamp columns

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Order of pg_stat_activity timestamp columns
Date: 2010-03-18 00:24:57
Message-ID: 201003180024.o2I0OvB28960@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, the current ordering is definitely historical rather than
> designed, but I'm hesitant to do more than minor tweaking. Even if we
> think/hope it won't break applications, people are probably used to
> seeing a particular ordering.
>
> I'm not necessarily dead set against it though. I guess if we were
> to do what you suggest, we'd end up with
>
> identity:
> datid | oid |
> datname | name |
> procpid | integer |
> usesysid | oid |
> usename | name |
> application_name | text |
> session:
> client_addr | inet |
> client_port | integer |
> backend_start | timestamp with time zone |
> transaction:
> xact_start | timestamp with time zone |
> query:
> query_start | timestamp with time zone |
> waiting | boolean |
> current_query | text |
>
> or possibly that plus relocate procpid somewhere else. Anyone think
> this is sufficiently better to justify possible confusion?

I think most reports have the stable information first, and the more
dynamic information at the end, so reordering it this way does make
sense.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-03-18 03:29:04 Re: Getting to beta1
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2010-03-18 00:03:23 Re: An idle thought