From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 13:03:18 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nML4W=SsfEzVSNhYUk0=Ak48uynCQ-2_y6jg2eeJd3RN7Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 13:19, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> Actually, for the future, it might be useful to have a "state" column,
>>>> that holds the idle/in transaction/running status, instead of the
>>>> tools having to parse the query text to get that information...
>>>
>>> +1 for doing it this way. Splitting "current_query" into "query" and
>>> "state" would be more elegant and easier to use all around.
>>
>> 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 be the backwards compatible way I suggested.
Sorry Magnus, I hadn't read the whole thread.
+1 to your suggestion.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-11-01 13:16:23 | Re: Thoughts on "SELECT * EXCLUDING (...) FROM ..."? |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-11-01 12:41:20 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |