On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 13:19, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>> Actually, for the future, it might be useful to have a "state" column, >>> that holds the idle/in transaction/running status, instead of the >>> tools having to parse the query text to get that information... >> >> +1 for doing it this way. Splitting "current_query" into "query" and >> "state" would be more elegant and easier to use all around. > > Why not leave it exactly as it is, and add a previous_query column? > > That gives you exactly what you need without breaking anything.
That would be the backwards compatible way I suggested. That said, I think there's still value in exposing a "state" column, and to encourage people not to rely on the text in the query column. Then you can add it to your list of things to remove in 10.0 :-) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
