[HACKERS] View pg_stat_activity slow to get up to date

2004-11-08 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
I checked the FAQ and docs but haven't found anything definitive. This is my SQL test script: SELECT pg_backend_pid(); SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity order by procpid; When I run psql reading that I find that my backend procpid is not in the list. I know that I can see it if I can introduce a

Re: [HACKERS] View pg_stat_activity slow to get up to date

2004-11-08 Thread Jan Wieck
On 11/8/2004 12:03 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: I checked the FAQ and docs but haven't found anything definitive. This is my SQL test script: SELECT pg_backend_pid(); SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity order by procpid; When I run psql reading that I find that my backend procpid is not in the list. I

Re: [HACKERS] View pg_stat_activity slow to get up to date

2004-11-08 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:56:57 -0500 Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jan. On 11/8/2004 12:03 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: I checked the FAQ and docs but haven't found anything definitive. This is my SQL test script: SELECT pg_backend_pid(); SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity order

Re: [HACKERS] View pg_stat_activity slow to get up to date

2004-11-08 Thread Tom Lane
D'Arcy J.M. Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I checked the FAQ and docs but haven't found anything definitive. This is my SQL test script: SELECT pg_backend_pid(); SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity order by procpid; When I run psql reading that I find that my backend procpid is not in the

Re: [HACKERS] View pg_stat_activity slow to get up to date

2004-11-08 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:07:34 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: D'Arcy J.M. Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I checked the FAQ and docs but haven't found anything definitive. This is my SQL test script: SELECT pg_backend_pid(); SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity order by procpid;

Re: [HACKERS] View pg_stat_activity slow to get up to date

2004-11-08 Thread Tom Lane
D'Arcy J.M. Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ISTM that what you have here is a bad substitute for using user locks (see contrib/userlock/). Perhaps. I assume that the lock is automatically released when the holder closes its connection to the database, right?