> It's also worth noting that pg_locks already has a full paragraph explaining > inconsistencies, so in my opinion it's worth it at least mentioning something > similar here for pg_stat_activity.
yes, that is a different consistency from the one I was referring to with regards to a join between pg_locks and pg_stat_activity, but I do agree that it is worth calling out the expectation for pg_stat_activity. > Thanks for the feedback, I've attached a v2 patch which has wording that's a > bit > more generic. A few comments. I don't like the use of "lightweight" here as it is usually referring to LWLocks ( lightweight locks ), which can cause confusion. Also,if we are going to mention specific examples, I think we will need to explain further what the discrepancy will look like. What about we do something much more simplified, such as the below: """ To keep the reporting overhead low, the system does not attempt to synchronize activity data for a backend. As a result, ephemeral discrepancies may exist between the view’s columns. """ -- Sami Imseih Amazon Web Services (AWS)
