On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Marti Raudsepp <ma...@juffo.org> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 15:42, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Marti Raudsepp <ma...@juffo.org> writes: >>> While we're already breaking everything, we could remove the "waiting" >>> column and use a state with value 'waiting' instead. > >> -1 ... I think it's useful to see the underlying state as well as the >> waiting flag. Also, this would represent breakage of part of the API >> that doesn't need to be broken. > > Well the waiting column can stay. My concern is that listing lock-wait > backends as 'running' will be misleading for users. pg_stat_activity > is a pretty common starting point for debugging problems and if > there's a new column that says a query is 'running', then I'm afraid > the current waiting 't' and 'f' values will be too subtle for users to > notice. (I find that it's too subtle already now, if you don't know > what you're looking for).
Maybe there's a better term than "running", like "in progress" or something of that sort. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
