| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
| Date: | 2011-11-01 14:06:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaTw-pYsC8ou=rdgqYfjXZSdP7rrP=chzpYGoPA8PCV5A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Why not leave it exactly as it is, and add a previous_query column?
>
>> That gives you exactly what you need without breaking anything.
>
> That would cost twice as much shared memory for query strings, and twice
> as much time to update the strings, for what seems pretty marginal
> value. I'm for just redefining the query field as "current or last
> query".
Not really. You could just store it once in shared memory, and put
the complexity in the view definition.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2011-11-01 14:07:20 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-01 14:04:43 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |