Only one line returned:

postgres=# select * from pg_stat_activity where pid=3990;
-[ RECORD 1 ]----+----------------------------------------
datid            | 16434
datname          | flip
pid              | 3990
usesysid         | 10
usename          | postgres
application_name | psql
client_addr      |
client_hostname  |
client_port      | -1
backend_start    | 2016-05-07 11:48:39.218398-03
xact_start       | 2016-05-07 11:48:43.417734-03
query_start      | 2016-05-07 11:48:43.417734-03
state_change     | 2016-05-07 11:48:43.417742-03
waiting          | f
state            | active
query            | CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY index_texto
                 |   ON flip_pagina_edicao
                 |   USING hash
                 |   (texto COLLATE pg_catalog."default");

postgres=#

2016-05-09 14:20 GMT-03:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> Robert Anderson <ranom...@gmail.com> writes:
> > There aren't transactions blocking:
>
> > postgres=# SELECT
> > postgres-#    w.query as waiting_query,
> > postgres-#    w.pid as waiting_pid,
> > postgres-#    w.usename as w_user,
> > postgres-#    l.pid as blocking_pid,
> > postgres-#    l.usename as blocking_user,
> > postgres-#    t.schemaname || '.' || t.relname as tablename
> > postgres-#    FROM pg_stat_activity w
> > postgres-#    JOIN pg_locks l1 ON (w.pid = l1.pid and not l1.granted)
> > postgres-#    JOIN pg_locks l2 on (l1.relation = l2.relation and
> l2.granted)
> > postgres-#    JOIN pg_stat_activity l ON (l2.pid = l.pid)
> > postgres-#    JOIN pg_stat_user_tables t ON (l1.relation = t.relid)
> > postgres-#    WHERE w.waiting;
> >  waiting_query | waiting_pid | w_user | blocking_pid | blocking_user |
> > tablename
> >
> ---------------+-------------+--------+--------------+---------------+-----------
> > (0 rows)
>
> This test proves little, because that last JOIN will discard locks on
> non-table objects, and what CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY would be most
> likely to be blocked on is transaction VXIDs.  However, since
> pg_stat_activity claims that "waiting" is false, probably there isn't
> anything in pg_locks.  Still, it'd be better to do
> "select * from pg_stat_activity where pid = 3990" and be sure.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>

Reply via email to