Re: procpid?

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: procpid?
Date: 2011-06-17 04:39:39
Message-ID: 4DFADA8B.7090508@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 06/16/2011 05:27 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>
>> -It is still useful to set current_query to descriptive text in the
>> cases where the transaction is<IDLE> etc.
>>
> Uh, if we are going to do that, why not just add the boolean columns to
> the existing view? Clearly renaming procpid isn't worth creating
> another view.
>

I'm not completely set on this either way; that's why I suggested a
study that digs into typical monitoring system queries would be useful.
Even the current view is pushing the limits for how much you can put
into something that intends to be human-readable though. Adding a new
pile of columns to it has some downsides there.

I hadn't ever tried to write down everything I'd like to see changed
here until this week, so there may be further column churn that
justifies a new view too. I think the whole idea needs to get chewed on
a bit more.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dan Ports 2011-06-17 04:47:25 Re: SSI work for 9.1
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-17 04:32:46 Re: SSI work for 9.1