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. +
