From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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 14:04:06 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+zX8dd6zzkZ0fL+f0Ke6gAzgDMxJTLoiiN97YFTuOLbA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Why not leave it exactly as it is, and add a previous_query column?
>
>> That gives you exactly what you need without breaking anything.
>
> 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". I could go either way on whether to rename it.
That's a good reason.
> If anyone's really hot about backward compatibility, it would not be
> very hard to create a view that replicates the old behavior working
> from a "state" column and a current-or-last-query column.
I'm in favour of change, when that has a purpose, just like you.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-01 14:04:43 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-01 13:52:36 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |