From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Progress bar updates |
Date: | 2006-07-19 09:35:44 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E40154C08A@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Greg Stark
> Sent: 19 July 2006 10:19
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Neil Conway; Gregory Stark; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Progress bar updates
>
> It would be the most practical way for a DBA to monitor an
> application. But
> it's not going to be convenient for clients like pgadmin or
> psql. Even a web
> server may want to, for example, stream ajax code updating a
> progress bar
> until it has results and then stream the ajax to display the
> results. Having
> to get the backend pid before your query and then open a
> second database
> connection to monitor your first connection would be extra
> footwork for
> nothing.
No to mention that we already get occasional complaints about the number
of connections pgAdmin can open (even though it's only one per database
for the main app, plus one per query tool or data editor window).
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-07-19 09:48:21 | Re: pgxs problem |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2006-07-19 09:33:47 | Re: Progress bar updates |