| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
| Date: | 2011-11-01 14:40:22 |
| Message-ID: | 25839.1320158422@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> That would cost twice as much shared memory for query strings, and twice
>> as much time to update the strings, for what seems pretty marginal
>> value. I'm for just redefining the query field as "current or last
>> query".
> Not really. You could just store it once in shared memory, and put
> the complexity in the view definition.
I understood the proposal to be "store the previous query in addition
to the current-query-if-any". If that's not what was meant, then my
objection was incorrect. However, like you, I'm pretty dubious of
having two mostly-redundant fields in the view definition, just because
of window width issues.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-11-01 14:47:03 | Re: LDAP server docs |
| Previous Message | Jeroen Vermeulen | 2011-11-01 14:37:05 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |