Re: procpid?

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: procpid?
Date: 2011-06-15 16:53:24
Message-ID: BD0EAD6DDD5F34A9C66F7782@apophis.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--On 15. Juni 2011 16:47:55 +0000 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> wrote:

> Or perhaps pg_connections. Yes, +1 to making things fully backwards
> compatible by keeping pg_stat_activity around but making a better
> designed and better named table (view/SRF/whatever).

I thought about that too when reading the thread the first time, but
"pg_stat_sessions" sounds better. Our documentation also primarily refers to a
database connection as a "session", i think.

--
Thanks

Bernd

In response to

  • Re: procpid? at 2011-06-15 16:47:55 from Greg Sabino Mullane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-06-15 16:53:59 Re: creating CHECK constraints as NOT VALID
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2011-06-15 16:52:39 Re: bad posix_fadvise support causes initdb to exit ungracefully