From: | Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
Date: | 2011-10-31 23:18:42 |
Message-ID: | CAKq0gvKUgN3mXKjCtSujtYiOtrH9D524PyY3f6mJ-0OC3=0Edg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:13 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.
>>
>
> I'm all for splitting it out actually. My concern was that I would break
> the 'ba-gillion' monitoring tools that already have support for
> pg_stat_activity if I dropped a column. What if we had:
>
> 'state' : idle | in transaction | running ( per Robert )
>
Sorry per Robert and Jaime
> 'current_query' : the most recent query (either last / currently
> running)
>
> That may be a bit tougher to get across to people though (especially in
> the case where state='<IDLE>').
>
> I'll rework this when I don't have trick-or-treaters coming to the front
> door :)
>
> --
> Scott Mead
> OpenSCG http://www.openscg.com
>
>
>> --
>> Robert Haas
>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-11-01 04:22:47 | Re: psql expanded auto |
Previous Message | Scott Mead | 2011-10-31 23:18:07 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |