Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, the current ordering is definitely historical rather than
> designed, but I'm hesitant to do more than minor tweaking. Even if we
> think/hope it won't break applications, people are probably used to
> seeing a particular ordering.
>
> I'm not necessarily dead set against it though. I guess if we were
> to do what you suggest, we'd end up with
>
> identity:
> datid | oid |
> datname | name |
> procpid | integer |
> usesysid | oid |
> usename | name |
> application_name | text |
> session:
> client_addr | inet |
> client_port | integer |
> backend_start | timestamp with time zone |
> transaction:
> xact_start | timestamp with time zone |
> query:
> query_start | timestamp with time zone |
> waiting | boolean |
> current_query | text |
>
> or possibly that plus relocate procpid somewhere else. Anyone think
> this is sufficiently better to justify possible confusion?
I think most reports have the stable information first, and the more
dynamic information at the end, so reordering it this way does make
sense.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
