Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> A new version of the patch. I used your idea with macros, and with tranches that
>> allowed us to remove array with names (they can be written directly to the corresponding
>> tranche).
>
> You seem not to have addressed a few of the points I brought up here:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoaGqhah0VTamsfaOMaE9uOrCPYSXN8hCS9=wirUPJSAhg@mail.gmail.com

More generally, I'd like to stop smashing all the things that need to
be done here into one patch. We need to make some changes, such as
the one I proposed earlier today, to make it easier to properly
identify locks. Let's talk about how to do that and agree on the
details. Then, once that's done, let's do the main part of the work
afterwards, in a separate commit. We're running through patch
versions at light speed here, but I'm not sure we're really building
consensus around how to do things. The actual technical work here
isn't really the problem; that part is easy. The hard part is
agreeing on the details of how it should work.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company