| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: procpid? |
| Date: | 2011-06-15 02:03:34 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTimFshpJSkuRBikqmrxQbr-Ne0hNuA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Agreed on moving '<IDLE>' and '<IDLE> in transaction' into separate
> fields. If I had thought of it I would have done it that way years ago.
> (At least I think it was me.) Using angle brackets to put magic values
> in that field was clearly wrong.
I think of these as just placeholders in the SQL text field for cases
where there's no SQL text available.
But they do clearly indicate a need for columns with this information.
For what it's worth Oracle provides a whole list of states the
transaction can be in, it can be waiting for client traffic, waiting
on i/o, waiting on a lock, etc.
Separately whether the session is in a transaction might need to
become slightly richer than a boolean now that we have snapshot
management. You can be in a transaction but not have any snapshots or
be in the traditional state where you have at least one snapshot. And
If we do autonomous transactions the field might have be much much
richer again.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2011-06-15 02:08:40 | Re: psql describe.c cleanup |
| Previous Message | Robert Creager | 2011-06-15 01:50:42 | Re: Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches |