Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Fully replacing ps_status (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add GUC update_process_title to control whether 'ps' display is)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Fully replacing ps_status (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add GUC update_process_title to control whether 'ps' display is)
Date: 2006-06-27 22:36:57
Message-ID: 8593.1151447817@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-hackers
momjian(at)postgresql(dot)org (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> Add GUC update_process_title to control whether 'ps' display is updated
> for every command, default to on.

It strikes me that the ps_status support provides one important bit of
information that is currently hard to get elsewhere; specifically, the
"waiting" flag that gets added while blocked on a lock.  You can find
out if a process is blocked by looking in pg_locks, but that's a fairly
expensive probe in itself and then you have to join to pg_stat_activity
to make any sense of it.  I wonder if we should add a "waiting" boolean
column to pg_stat_activity?  Given the new implementation of
pg_stat_activity, updating such a flag would be pretty cheap.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-27 22:44:46
Subject: Re: Fully replacing ps_status (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql:
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-27 22:16:44
Subject: pgsql: Add GUC update_process_title to control whether 'ps' display is

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-27 22:44:46
Subject: Re: Fully replacing ps_status (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql:
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-06-27 22:16:44
Subject: pgsql: Add GUC update_process_title to control whether 'ps' display is

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group