On 2015-06-25 16:26:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > Won't leaving former contents as it is (until the next thing is being > blocked) could give misleading information. Currently we mark 'waiting' > as false as soon as Heavy Weight Lock is over, so following that way > sounds more appropriate, is there any reason why you want it differently > than what we are doing currently?
But we don't do the same for query, so I don't think that says much. I think it'd be useful because it gives you a bit more chance to see what you blocked on last, even if the time the backend was blocked was very short. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
