On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:57 AM Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > First, we're just talking about an extra couple of columns in > > pg_stat_activity here, which does not seem like a heavy price to pay. > > The most recent patch adds a separate function rather than adding more > columns to pg_stat_activity. I think the complaint about making that > view wider for infrequently-used columns is entirely valid.
I guess that's OK. I don't particularly favor that approach here but I can live with it. I agree that too-wide views are annoying, but as far as pg_stat_activity goes, that ship has pretty much sailed already, and the same is true for a lot of other views. Inventing a one-off solution for this particular case doesn't seem particularly warranted to me but, again, I can live with it. > Why would pg_upgrade fail due to new/removed columns in > pg_stat_activity? Do you mean if a user creates a view on top of it? Yes, that is a thing that some people do, and I think it is the most likely way for any changes to the view definition to cause compatibility problems. I could be wrong, though. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
