Re: IDLE in transaction introspection - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Date
Msg-id 201111101917.pAAJH0M09342@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: IDLE in transaction introspection  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > It might be cleaner to use booleans:
> >     active:         t/f
> >     in transaction: t/f
> 
> I don't think so, because that makes some very strict assumptions that
> there are exactly four interesting states (an assumption that isn't
> even true today, to judge by the activity strings we're using now).

Well, we could use an optional "details" string for that.  If not, we
are still using the magic-string approach, which I thought we didn't
like.

--  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: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Is there a good reason we don't have INTERVAL 'infinity'?