Re: procpid?

From: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: procpid?
Date: 2011-06-17 20:00:37
Message-ID: 20F32433-0535-475F-915C-35DA2E47DAF0@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> -A case could be made for making some of these state fields null, instead true or false, in situations where the session is not visible. If you don't have rights to see the connection activity, setting idle, idle_transaction, and active all to null may be the right thing to do. More future bikeshedding is likely on this part, once an initial patch is ready for testing. I'd want to get some specific tests against the common monitoring goals of tools like check_postgres and the Munin plug-in to see which implementation makes more sense for them as input on that.

ISTM this should be driven by what data we actually expose. If we're willing to expose actual information for idle, idle_transaction and waiting for backends that you don't have permission to see the query for, then we should expose the actual information (I personally think this would be useful).

OTOH, if we are not willing to expose that information, then we should certainly set those fields to null instead of some default value.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-06-17 20:03:08 Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-17 19:54:16 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe