Re: procpid? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: procpid?
Date
Msg-id 20F32433-0535-475F-915C-35DA2E47DAF0@nasby.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: procpid?  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> -A case could be made for making some of these state fields null, instead true or false, in situations where the
sessionis not visible.  If you don't have rights to see the connection activity, setting idle, idle_transaction, and
activeall to null may be the right thing to do.  More future bikeshedding is likely on this part, once an initial patch
isready for testing.  I'd want to get some specific tests against the common monitoring goals of tools like
check_postgresand the Munin plug-in to see which implementation makes more sense for them as input on that. 

ISTM this should be driven by what data we actually expose. If we're willing to expose actual information for idle,
idle_transactionand waiting for backends that you don't have permission to see the query for, then we should expose the
actualinformation (I personally think this would be useful). 

OTOH, if we are not willing to expose that information, then we should certainly set those fields to null instead of
somedefault value. 
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
Next
From: Brendan Jurd
Date:
Subject: Fwd: Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific