stgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_top
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> John R Pierce writes:
>> /me tossed another mumbled curse at whomever changed that field name.
>
> The reason for the field name change was that the semantics of the
> field changed. Y
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> John R Pierce writes:
>> /me tossed another mumbled curse at whomever changed that field name.
>
> The reason for the field name change was that the semantics of the field
> changed. You typically ought to look at what the application is
> actua
John R Pierce writes:
> /me tossed another mumbled curse at whomever changed that field name.
The reason for the field name change was that the semantics of the field
changed. You typically ought to look at what the application is
actually doing with the field, not just do s/current_query/query/
On 12/20/2012 4:17 AM, Brett Maton wrote:
It appears that procpid has been renamed to pid at some point, also
the column current_query appears to have been shortened to query.
My patch updates a couple of queries to use the new shorter column names.
IMHO, any such fix should check the ver
ckers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_top
On Thursday 20 December 2012, Brett Maton wrote:
> Hi List,
>
>
>
> This might not be the right place to post, but I've got a minor
> patch for pg_top and would like to submit it for review.
>
>
This project
On Thursday 20 December 2012, Brett Maton wrote:
> Hi List,
>
>
>
> This might not be the right place to post, but I've got a minor patch for
> pg_top and would like to submit it for review.
>
>
This project lies on Github:
https://github.com/markwkm/pg_top/
I think, this commit had fixed t
Hi List,
This might not be the right place to post, but I've got a minor patch for
pg_top and would like to submit it for review.
Basically, the rpm version in the repositories pg_top92-3.6.2 doesn't work
with Postgres 9.2
#define QUERY_PROCESSES \
"SELECT procpid\
