Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:10 AM, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
wrote:
> > > I do think there's a considerable benefit in improving the
> > > instrumentation here, but his strikes me as making live more complex
for
> > > more users than it makes it easier. At the very least this should be
> > > split into two fields (type & what we're actually waiting on). I also
> > > strongly suspect we shouldn't use in band signaling ("process not
> > > waiting"), but rather make the field NULL if we're not waiting on
> > > anything.
> >
> > +1 for splitting it into two fields.
> >
>
> I will take care of this.
>

As discussed, I have added a new field wait_event_type along with
wait_event in pg_stat_activity. Changed the code return NULL, if
backend is not waiting. Updated the docs as well.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com