Horton

Re: IDLE in transaction introspection

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, "Andrew Dunstan *EXTERN*" <andrew@dunslane.net>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-04T18:20:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 15:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> writes:
>>> While we're already breaking everything, we could remove the "waiting"
>>> column and use a state with value 'waiting' instead.
>
>> -1 ... I think it's useful to see the underlying state as well as the
>> waiting flag.  Also, this would represent breakage of part of the API
>> that doesn't need to be broken.
>
> Well the waiting column can stay. My concern is that listing lock-wait
> backends as 'running' will be misleading for users. pg_stat_activity
> is a pretty common starting point for debugging problems and if
> there's a new column that says a query is 'running', then I'm afraid
> the current waiting 't' and 'f' values will be too subtle for users to
> notice. (I find that it's too subtle already now, if you don't know
> what you're looking for).

Maybe there's a better term than "running", like "in progress" or
something of that sort.

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