From: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: View pg_stat_activity slow to get up to date |
Date: | 2004-11-08 20:29:16 |
Message-ID: | 20041108152916.624b1866.darcy@druid.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:07:34 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> writes:
> > I checked the FAQ and docs but haven't found anything definitive.
> > This is my SQL test script:
>
> > SELECT pg_backend_pid();
> > SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity order by procpid;
>
> > When I run psql reading that I find that my backend procpid is not
> > in the list. I know that I can see it if I can introduce a little
> > sleep (1 second) between the connection and the reading of
> > pg_stat_activity.
>
> ISTM that what you have here is a bad substitute for using user locks
> (see contrib/userlock/).
Perhaps. I assume that the lock is automatically released when the
holder closes its connection to the database, right? If so then that's
what I need.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-11-08 20:31:16 | Re: Increasing the length of pg_stat_activity.current_query... |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-11-08 19:56:55 | ExclusiveLock |