Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Kevin Grittner wrote: >> It would scan better, to my mind, if we moved backend_start ahead >> of xact_start. > > Yes, that is another idea that would work, though Tom's idea that > the query start should be near the query makes sense. Well, in an ideal world, I would put the current_query column at the end, so that long queries wouldn't make it hard to see the other values. I think I'd want to squeeze waiting in between the timestamps and the query. I would generally want items to be close together if related and farther down the field list if they were more volatile. For example, since application_name can be changed but client_* values can't, I'd put application_name later -- possibly right before the timestamps. If we're willing to re-order the existing columns, why not try to make the whole thing sane? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
