On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 14:42, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Marti Raudsepp <ma...@juffo.org> writes: > >> While we're already breaking everything, we could remove the "waiting" > >> column and use a state with value 'waiting' instead. > > > > -1 ... I think it's useful to see the underlying state as well as the > > waiting flag. Also, this would represent breakage of part of the API > > that doesn't need to be broken. > > I guess with the changes that showed different thing like fastpath, > that makes sense. But if we just mapped the states that are there > today straight off, is there any case where waiting can be true, when > we're either idle or idle in transaction? I think not.. > Leave the waiting column and display 'WAITING' if st_watiting = 1 seems to be the clearest solution. I can see people getting confused by waiting = 't' and state='RUNNING'. > > > >> Also, returning these as text seems a little lame. Should there be an > >> enum type for that? > > > > Perhaps, but we don't really use enum types in any other system views, > > so inventing one here would be out of character. > > Yeha, that seems inconsistent. Using a single character might work - > but it's not particularly user-friendly to do that in the view itself. > I'll nuke the '<>', which is definitely an improvement, anything more complex seems like it'll require fairly wordy documentation. -- Scott Mead OpenSCG http://www.openscg.com > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
