Re: procpid? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: procpid?
Date
Msg-id 4DF79982.5090206@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: procpid?  (Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>)
Responses Re: procpid?
Re: procpid?
List pgsql-hackers
On 06/14/2011 11:44 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better still to have both the new and old columns 
> available for a while? That would produce the minimum amount of 
> disruption to tools, etc.

Doing this presumes the existence of a large number of tools where the 
author is unlikely to be keeping up with PostgreSQL development.  I 
don't believe that theorized set of users actually exists.  There are 
people who use pg_stat_activity simply, and there are tool authors who 
are heavily involved enough that they will see a change here coming far 
enough in advance to adopt it without disruption.  If there's a large 
base of "casual" tool authors, who wrote something using 
pg_stat_activity once and will never update it again, I don't know where 
they are.

Anyway, I want a larger change to pg_stat_activity than this one, and I 
would just roll fixing this column name into that more disruptive and 
positive change.  Right now the biggest problem with this view is that 
you have to parse the text of the query to figure out what state the 
connection is in.  This is silly; there should be boolean values exposed 
for "idle" and "in transaction".  I want to be able to write things like 
this:

SELECT idle,in_trans,count(*) FROM pg_stat_activity GROUP BY idle,in_trans;
SELECT min(backend_start) FROM pg_stat_activity WHERE idle;

Right now the standard approach to this is to turn current_query into a 
derived state value using CASE statements.  It's quite unfriendly, and a 
bigger problem than this procpid mismatch.  Fix that whole mess at once, 
and now you've got something useful enough to justify breaking tools.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support  www.2ndQuadrant.us




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP] cache estimates, cache access cost
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [WIP] cache estimates, cache access cost