Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie dic 17 12:41:06 -0300 2010:
>> Hm, what about pgstat_report_activity()?
> I wasn't sure about that, because of the overhead, but now that I look
> at it, it's supposed to be cheaper than changing the ps_status in some
> cases, so I guess there's no harm.
Yeah, if we can afford a possible kernel call to set ps status, it
doesn't seem like pgstat_report_activity should be a problem. I'm
also of the opinion that more people look at pg_stat_activity than
ps output these days.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
