Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-01T12:41:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 13:19, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.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. > > Why not leave it exactly as it is, and add a previous_query column? > > That gives you exactly what you need without breaking anything. That would be the backwards compatible way I suggested. That said, I think there's still value in exposing a "state" column, and to encourage people not to rely on the text in the query column. Then you can add it to your list of things to remove in 10.0 :-) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/