> It's also worth noting that pg_locks already has a full paragraph explaining
> inconsistencies, so in my opinion it's worth it at least mentioning something
> similar here for pg_stat_activity.
yes, that is a different consistency from the one I was referring to with
regards to a join between pg_locks and pg_stat_activity, but I do
agree that it is worth calling out the expectation for pg_stat_activity.
> Thanks for the feedback, I've attached a v2 patch which has wording that's a bit
> more generic.
A few comments. I don't like the use of "lightweight" here as it is
usually referring
to LWLocks ( lightweight locks ), which can cause confusion. Also,if
we are going
to mention specific examples, I think we will need to explain further what the
discrepancy will look like. What about we do something much more
simplified, such
as the below:
"""
To keep the reporting overhead low, the system does not attempt to synchronize
activity data for a backend. As a result, ephemeral discrepancies may
exist between
the view’s columns.
"""
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
