Re: [HACKERS] ps_status on fastpath

2010-12-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie dic 17 18:21:48 -0300 2010: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie dic 17 12:41:06 -0300 2010: > >> Hm, what about pgstat_report_activity()? > > > Just noticed that it's already handled in postgres.c, before calling > > HandleF

Re: [HACKERS] ps_status on fastpath

2010-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie dic 17 12:41:06 -0300 2010: >> Hm, what about pgstat_report_activity()? > Just noticed that it's already handled in postgres.c, before calling > HandleFunctionRequest. Probably not worth messing with. Ah. Well, the ps_status upda

Re: [HACKERS] ps_status on fastpath

2010-12-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie dic 17 12:41:06 -0300 2010: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > I noticed that the fastpath code doesn't update ps_status, which would > > be harmless except that it leads to "idle in transaction" being logged > > in log_line_prefix for the command tag. > > > Are

Re: [HACKERS] ps_status on fastpath

2010-12-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie dic 17 16:25:17 -0300 2010: > Alvaro Herrera 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

Re: [HACKERS] ps_status on fastpath

2010-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera 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

Re: [HACKERS] ps_status on fastpath

2010-12-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie dic 17 12:41:06 -0300 2010: > Alvaro Herrera writes: > > I noticed that the fastpath code doesn't update ps_status, which would > > be harmless except that it leads to "idle in transaction" being logged > > in log_line_prefix for the command tag. > > > Are

Re: [HACKERS] ps_status on fastpath

2010-12-17 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > I noticed that the fastpath code doesn't update ps_status, which would > be harmless except that it leads to "idle in transaction" being logged > in log_line_prefix for the command tag. > Are there objections to applying this? Hm, what about pgstat_report_activity()? Is

[HACKERS] ps_status on fastpath

2010-12-17 Thread Alvaro Herrera
I noticed that the fastpath code doesn't update ps_status, which would be harmless except that it leads to "idle in transaction" being logged in log_line_prefix for the command tag. Are there objections to applying this? -- Álvaro Herrera fastpath-ps.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent v