Horton

Re: IDLE in transaction introspection

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, "Andrew Dunstan *EXTERN*" <andrew@dunslane.net>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-10T19:17:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > It might be cleaner to use booleans:
> > 	active:         t/f
> > 	in transaction: t/f
> 
> I don't think so, because that makes some very strict assumptions that
> there are exactly four interesting states (an assumption that isn't
> even true today, to judge by the activity strings we're using now).

Well, we could use an optional "details" string for that.  If not, we
are still using the magic-string approach, which I thought we didn't
like.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +