On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 11/6/14 6:16 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Another thought I had in that case is maybe we need to break out the
pg_stat_activity and
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On 11/6/14 6:16 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Another thought I had in that case is maybe we need to break out the
pg_stat_activity and pg_stat_replication views into their own table.
They are really the only two views that
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/monitoring-stats.html, table 27-1.
Can somebody find or explain the order of the views in there? It's not
actually alphabetical, but it's
On 11/6/14 6:16 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Another thought I had in that case is maybe we need to break out the
pg_stat_activity and pg_stat_replication views into their own table.
They are really the only two views that are different in a lot of
ways. Maybe call the splits session statistics
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/monitoring-stats.html, table 27-1.
Can somebody find or explain the order of the views in there? It's not
actually alphabetical, but it's also not logical. In particular, what
is pg_stat_replication doing second to last?
I would suggest we move
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/monitoring-stats.html, table 27-1.
Can somebody find or explain the order of the views in there? It's not
actually alphabetical, but it's also not logical. In particular, what
is pg_stat_replication doing
On 11/5/14 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
However, should we consider the possibility of changing the table to
straight alphabetical ordering? I'm not as much in love with that
approach as some folks, but it does have the merit that it's always clear
where you ought to put a new item.
Yes, I
On 11/5/14, 2:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 11/5/14 10:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
However, should we consider the possibility of changing the table to
straight alphabetical ordering? I'm not as much in love with that
approach as some folks, but it does have the merit that it's always clear
