On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 13:19, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> >>> wrote: >>>> Actually, for the future, it might be useful to have a "state" column, >>>> that holds the idle/in transaction/running status, instead of the >>>> tools having to parse the query text to get that information... >>> >>> +1 for doing it this way. Splitting "current_query" into "query" and >>> "state" would be more elegant and easier to use all around. >> >> Why not leave it exactly as it is, and add a previous_query column? >> >> That gives you exactly what you need without breaking anything. > > That would be the backwards compatible way I suggested.
Sorry Magnus, I hadn't read the whole thread. +1 to your suggestion. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
