| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "Andrew Dunstan *EXTERN*" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
| Date: | 2011-11-10 19:17:00 |
| Message-ID: | 201111101917.pAAJH0M09342@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-11-10 19:28:38 | Re: Is there a good reason we don't have INTERVAL 'infinity'? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-10 19:00:33 | Re: pg_dump 9.1.1 hanging (collectSecLabels gets 0 labels) |