Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>, "Andrew Dunstan *EXTERN*" <andrew@dunslane.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-04T07:15:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 03:27, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com> wrote: >> ISTM that we're all for: >> creating a new column: state >> renaming current_query => query >> State will display <RUNNING>, <IDLE>, <IDLE> in transaction, etc... >> query will display the last query that was executed. > > The greater/less-than-sign is still required in the State display? +1 for removing that. I think the only reason for them to be there in the first place was to decrease the chance of matching up against a real query - but that's not going to happen if they are in a separate field... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/