From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Fully replacing ps_status (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add GUC update_process_title to control whether 'ps' display is) |
Date: | 2006-06-27 22:36:57 |
Message-ID: | 8593.1151447817@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
momjian(at)postgresql(dot)org (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> Add GUC update_process_title to control whether 'ps' display is updated
> for every command, default to on.
It strikes me that the ps_status support provides one important bit of
information that is currently hard to get elsewhere; specifically, the
"waiting" flag that gets added while blocked on a lock. You can find
out if a process is blocked by looking in pg_locks, but that's a fairly
expensive probe in itself and then you have to join to pg_stat_activity
to make any sense of it. I wonder if we should add a "waiting" boolean
column to pg_stat_activity? Given the new implementation of
pg_stat_activity, updating such a flag would be pretty cheap.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-27 22:44:46 | Re: Fully replacing ps_status (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-27 22:16:44 | pgsql: Add GUC update_process_title to control whether 'ps' display is |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-27 22:44:46 | Re: Fully replacing ps_status (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-27 22:16:44 | pgsql: Add GUC update_process_title to control whether 'ps' display is |