On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <g...@turnstep.com> wrote: >> For me, the litmus test is whether the change provides enough >> improvement that it outweighs the disruption when the user runs into >> it. > > For the procpid that started all of this, the clear answer is no. I'm > surprised people seriously considered making this change. It's a > historical accident: document and move on.
I agree with you on this one... >> This is why I suggested a specific, useful, and commonly requested >> (to me at least) change to pg_stat_activity go along with this. > > +1. The procpid change is silly, but fixing the current_query field > would be very useful. You don't know how many times my fingers > have typed "WHERE current_query <> '<IDLE>'" ...but I'm not even excited about this. *Maybe* it's worth adding another column, but the problem with the existing system is *entirely* cosmetic. The string chosen here is unconfusable with an actual query, so we are talking here, as with the procpid -> pid proposal, ONLY about saving a few keystrokes when writing queries. That is a pretty thin justification for a compatibility break IMV. -- 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
