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

From Scott Mead
Subject Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Date
Msg-id CAKq0gv+Qamw81Li653EwzYWCiXr8GBuXS7yms4-0deWOkJEq-w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: IDLE in transaction introspection  (Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com>)
Responses Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
List pgsql-hackers


On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 01/12/2012 11:57 AM, Scott Mead wrote:
Pretty delayed, but please find the attached patch that addresses all the issues discussed.

The docs on this v4 look like they suffered a patch order problem here.  In the v3, you added a whole table describing the pg_stat_activity documentation in more detail than before.  v4 actually tries to remove those new docs, a change which won't even apply as they don't exist upstream.

My guess is you committed v3 to somewhere, applied the code changes for v4, but not the documentation ones.  It's easy to do that and end up with a patch that removes a bunch of docs the previous patch added.  I have to be careful to always do something like "git diff origin/master" to avoid this class of problem, until I got into that habit I did this sort of thing regularly.

gak

I did a 'backwards' diff last time.  This time around, I diff-ed off of a fresh pull of 'master' (and I did the diff in the right direction.

Also includes whitespace cleanup and the pg_stat_replication (procpid ==> pid) regression fix.

--Scott

Okay, I'll fix that and the rules.out regression that I missed

--Scott

 

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



Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Why is CF 2011-11 still listed as "In Progress"?
Next
From: Daniel Farina
Date:
Subject: Should we add crc32 in libpgport?