Re: procpid? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: procpid?
Date
Msg-id 201106091718.p59HIUD06729@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: procpid?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Can someone explain why pg_stat_activity has a column named procpid and
> > not simply pid? ?'pid' is that pg_locks uses, and 'procpid' is redundant
> > (proc-process-id). ?A mistake?
> 
> Well, we refer to the slots that backends use as "procs" (really
> PGPROC), so I'm guessing that this was intended to mean "the pid
> associated with the proc".  It might not be the greatest name but I
> can't see changing it now.

Agreed.  Just pointing out this mistake slipped through.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [v9.1] sepgsql - userspace access vector cache
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Invalid byte sequence for encoding "UTF8", caused due to non wide-char-aware downcase_truncate_identifier() function on WINDOWS