Re: procpid?

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 06:39, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 05:27 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -It is still useful to set current_query to descriptive text in the
>>> cases where the transaction is<IDLE>  etc.
>>>
>>
>> Uh, if we are going to do that, why not just add the boolean columns to
>> the existing view?  Clearly renaming procpid isn't worth creating
>> another view.
>>
>
> I'm not completely set on this either way; that's why I suggested a study
> that digs into typical monitoring system queries would be useful.  Even the
> current view is pushing the limits for how much you can put into something
> that intends to be human-readable though.  Adding a new pile of columns to
> it has some downsides there.

Is it intended for human-readable? And for human readable without
specifying which part you want? It's already way too wide to fit in
most terminals - and has been for years. You need to use \x unless you
specify the fields.

And if you want a "simpler version", why not just add all the columns
to the existing one we need, and then create a regular VIEW over it
that shows just the most common columns? But I still think you're
going to find a hard time making even that narrow enough to be easily
consumable - but you could certainly remove things like usesysid and
datid which are mainly useful only for JOINing to other stuff.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/