On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Joel Jacobson <j...@trustly.com> wrote: > This is an excellent feature, thanks! > But can we please keep the old boolean waiting column? > I see no reason to break backward-compatibility. Or maybe I'm missing > something.
Well, this was discussed. If we keep the Boolean "waiting" column, then either: 1. We make it true only for heavyweight lock waits, and false for other kinds of waits. That's pretty strange. 2. We make it true for all kinds of waits that we now know how to report. That still breaks compatibility. I do understand that changing this is backward-incompatible and a lot of people are going to have to update their monitoring tools. But I think that's the best alternative. If we choose option #1, we're going to be saddled with a weird backward-compatibility column forever, and ten years from now we'll be explaining that even if waiting = false you might still be waiting depending on the value of some other column. If we choose option #2, it won't be backward-compatible and some people's queries will still break, just less obviously. Neither of those things seems very appealing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
