Re: patch to create system view that lists cursors

Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> The tests above seem fairly ad-hoc.

No kidding.  But what do you think the correct test is?  The comment's
claim that stuff named "<unnamed cursor>" should be suppressed seems
wrong to begin with, as those are perfectly good cursors.  I'm also
unconvinced that a test on portal->status is a good idea, as I doubt
that ACTIVE should be excluded, and I'm not sure that DONE or FAILED
should be either, and NEW is probably a non-issue because you'll never
see it from within a running command.

What is the point of having this code discriminate against any portals
whatever?

            regards, tom lane