Columns of pg_stat_activity
Since we are wacking around pg_stat_activity for 9.2, what do people
think about these column names?
backend_start | timestamp with time zone |
xact_start | timestamp with time zone |
query_start | timestamp with time zone |
Arguably:
backend_start -> session_start
query_start -> statment_start
Should we make any of these changes?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Since we are wacking around pg_stat_activity for 9.2, what do people
think about these column names?backend_start | timestamp with time zone |
xact_start | timestamp with time zone |
query_start | timestamp with time zone |Arguably:
backend_start -> session_start
query_start -> statment_startShould we make any of these changes?
Sounds like a lot of potential breakage to solve something I don't
think is a problem. Besides, isn't the door for 9.2 changes now
closed and bolted?
--
Thom
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:50:43PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Since we are wacking around pg_stat_activity for 9.2, what do people
think about these column names?� � � � backend_start � �| timestamp with time zone |
� � � � xact_start � � � | timestamp with time zone |
� � � � query_start � � �| timestamp with time zone |Arguably:
� � � �backend_start -> session_start
� � � �query_start -> statment_startShould we make any of these changes?
Sounds like a lot of potential breakage to solve something I don't
think is a problem. Besides, isn't the door for 9.2 changes now
closed and bolted?
Well, we renamed procpid -> pid and I noticed these others. Not sure if
it is a win or not, but just asking.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 23:04, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:50:43PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Since we are wacking around pg_stat_activity for 9.2, what do people
think about these column names?backend_start | timestamp with time zone |
xact_start | timestamp with time zone |
query_start | timestamp with time zone |Arguably:
backend_start -> session_start
query_start -> statment_startShould we make any of these changes?
Sounds like a lot of potential breakage to solve something I don't
think is a problem. Besides, isn't the door for 9.2 changes now
closed and bolted?Well, we renamed procpid -> pid and I noticed these others. Not sure if
it is a win or not, but just asking.
We also renamed current_query -> query, but that was mainly because it
actually changed meaning.
But. Since we already whacked around procpid->pid, yes, if we're ever
going to change those, now is the time, really.
I think at least backend_start -> session_start would make sense.
Not sure about the other one - what's wrong with query_start?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:50:43PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Arguably:
backend_start -> session_start
query_start -> statment_start
Sounds like a lot of potential breakage to solve something I don't
think is a problem. Besides, isn't the door for 9.2 changes now
closed and bolted?
We do still have open issues that include such proposed changes,
so I'd say that "too late" isn't a good argument. However ...
Well, we renamed procpid -> pid and I noticed these others. Not sure if
it is a win or not, but just asking.
We were talking about renaming columns if we changed their semantics.
I don't think renaming for the sake of a slightly cleaner name will
win us any friends.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:11:18PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Should we make any of these changes?
Sounds like a lot of potential breakage to solve something I don't
think is a problem. �Besides, isn't the door for 9.2 changes now
closed and bolted?Well, we renamed procpid -> pid and I noticed these others. �Not sure if
it is a win or not, but just asking.We also renamed current_query -> query, but that was mainly because it
actually changed meaning.But. Since we already whacked around procpid->pid, yes, if we're ever
going to change those, now is the time, really.I think at least backend_start -> session_start would make sense.
Not sure about the other one - what's wrong with query_start?
We consistently use "statement" for commands, not "queries", because
some feel query means SELECT.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:14:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:50:43PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 11 April 2012 21:46, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Arguably:
backend_start -> session_start
query_start -> statment_startSounds like a lot of potential breakage to solve something I don't
think is a problem. Besides, isn't the door for 9.2 changes now
closed and bolted?We do still have open issues that include such proposed changes,
so I'd say that "too late" isn't a good argument. However ...Well, we renamed procpid -> pid and I noticed these others. Not sure if
it is a win or not, but just asking.We were talking about renaming columns if we changed their semantics.
I don't think renaming for the sake of a slightly cleaner name will
win us any friends.
The "procpid" change was for accuracy, I guess.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +