Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, reading the patch I see comments indicating that yes that's possible and
> no, we don't really care. So, ok. If the backend disappears entirely could the
> string be empty?
Right, we'd be pointing at a BackendStatusArray entry that was now
unused, or even perhaps recycled by a new session. That memory doesn't
move, so we don't need to worry about picking up something that's not
a status string at all, but worst case it could be not the string we
want. I think the odds are pretty low though.
Perhaps it would be safer to copy out st_activity inside the
> loop checking st_changecount?
Don't think it would really help any --- the other backend could've
aborted and changed its status string before we ever get to this code at
all.
> It is a really nice feature though. Note that there was an unrelated demand
> for just this info on one of the other lists just today. Thanks very much
> Itagaki-san!
That was my feeling --- the usefulness is high enough that a small
probability of a wrong display is a small price to pay.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
