Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > It might be cleaner to use booleans: > > active: t/f > > in transaction: t/f > > I don't think so, because that makes some very strict assumptions that > there are exactly four interesting states (an assumption that isn't > even true today, to judge by the activity strings we're using now).
Well, we could use an optional "details" string for that. If not, we are still using the magic-string approach, which I thought we didn't like. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers