Re: IDLE in transaction introspection

From: Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "Andrew Dunstan *EXTERN*" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Date: 2011-11-04 18:46:53
Message-ID: CAKq0gvJdRwJXWo-F9uYP-qRc14aq5cB9Wn1HPGW2OpDF4Ys9_Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> Maybe there's a better term than "running", like "in progress" or
> >> something of that sort.
> >
> > "active"?
>
> +1.
>
> Letting this one 'poll' a bit more before I post the patch, but here's
what I have:

If waiting == true, then state = WAITING
else
state = appropriate state

I leave the waiting flag in place for posterity. With this in mind, is
the consensus:

RUNNING

or

ACTIVE

--
Scott Mead
OpenSCG http://www.openscg.com

--
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-11-04 19:01:42 Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-11-04 18:31:24 Re: IDLE in transaction introspection