Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2015-06-25 16:26:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Won't leaving former contents as it is (until the next thing is being
> > blocked) could give misleading information. Currently we mark 'waiting'
> > as false as soon as Heavy Weight Lock is over, so following that way
> > sounds more appropriate, is there any reason why you want it differently
> > than what we are doing currently?
>
> But we don't do the same for query, so I don't think that says much. I
> think it'd be useful because it gives you a bit more chance to see what
> you blocked on last, even if the time the backend was blocked was very
> short.
>

Sure, that's another way to look at it, if you and or others feels that is
better,
then we can follow that way.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com