Well, I'm still for this ... how about something simiple like 'idle in
trans'? show, and easy to figure out what it means?
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Christof Petig wrote:
> If you don't know what is all about read the bottom (I'll requote my posting)
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Seems we decided against this. Sorry.
> > >
> > > Huh? from reading Tom's response, sounds like it would be something
> > > useful? I know I find having as much information about state in the ps
> > > listing helps me alot, and knowing if its 'idle' vs 'idle (in
> > > transaction)' provides at lesat more detailed information then just 'idle'
> >
> > > Who was the 'we' in the above decision? Tom seemed in favor of it, I know
> > > I'm in favor of it .. and you are not in favor of it ...
> >
> > There must have been some discussion about it. I don't see it in the
> > code, and I remember it was rejected for some reason. Check the archives.
>
> The thing which comes most close to a rejection was the 'I can't decide' mail
> by you (answered by Tom). The conclusion sounded like 'since we're not clear on
> this subject we won't touch this, yet'. And there was some unsettled discussion
> about the best wording to show in 'ps'.
>
> 'trans' seemed too short (and too much unlike 'idle') (as indicated by Bruce)
> and 'idle (open transaction)' might give difficulties on platforms which limit
> the length of the string (as indicated by Tom)
>
> I'll CC Hackers (where this discussion belongs)
>
> Christof
>
> ---------------------
>
> Quoting:
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Small patch to replace 'idle' by 'trans' if transaction
> is still open
> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:46:56 -0400
> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I can't decide if this is of general use. My inclination is that
> > someone in a transaction sitting a prompt should still show as idle.
>
> The idea seemed good to me, although I didn't look at the code to see
> if the implementation was any good ;-). I know we've frequently had
> questions on the lists where it was interesting to know if any
> transactions were being held open --- and right now there's no easy
> way to tell.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --------------
>
> Subject: Small patch to replace 'idle' by 'trans' if transaction is still open
> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 21:28:36 +0200
> From: Christof Petig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If you are looking for programs which tend to hold longstanding
> transactions, this micro patch might be handy.
> Whether it is of general use is debatable. It will replace 'idle' by
> 'trans' if the backend is idle but a transaction is pending.
>
> Simply use ps to view the backend's status.
>
> Christof
>
> --- src/backend/commands/async.c~ Sun May 14 05:18:35 2000
> +++ src/backend/commands/async.c Tue Oct 3 10:31:54 2000
> @@ -818,7 +818,7 @@
> */
> pq_flush();
>
> - PS_SET_STATUS("idle");
> + PS_SET_STATUS(IsTransactionBlock()?"trans":"idle");
> TPRINTF(TRACE_NOTIFY, "ProcessIncomingNotify: done");
> }
>
> --- src/backend/tcop/postgres.c~ Thu Aug 31 09:18:57 2000
> +++ src/backend/tcop/postgres.c Tue Oct 3 10:32:23 2000
> @@ -1496,7 +1496,7 @@
>
> for (;;)
> {
> - PS_SET_STATUS("idle");
> + PS_SET_STATUS(IsTransactionBlock()?"trans":"idle");
>
> /* ----------------
> * (1) tell the frontend we're ready for a new query.
>
>
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: [EMAIL PROTECTED] secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
