Re: Increasing the length of pg_stat_activity.current_query...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Increasing the length of pg_stat_activity.current_query...
Date: 2004-11-06 23:14:41
Message-ID: 17641.1099782881@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Not having the whole query is painful. Raising it to 1K doesn't get
> round the fact that it's the longer queries that tend to be the more
> painful ones, and so they are the ones you want to trap in full and
> EXPLAIN, so you can find out if they are *ever* coming back.

... so look in the postmaster log ...

> I'd vote in favour of relaxing the limit entirely, as Sean suggests.

The choice is not between "limit" and "no limit", it is between
"limit" and "broken".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-11-06 23:29:44 Re: Proposal for Recover mode in pg_ctl (in 8.0)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-11-06 23:12:22 Re: relative_path() seems overly complicated and buggy