On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:47:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> The current column ordering can be rationalized to some extent as
> >>
> >> 1. identity info (user id, db id, application name)
> >> 2. current query info
> >> 3. session info (backend start time, client addr/port)
>
> > OK. I guess that trumps my idea, although it would sure be nice if
> > it were possible to swap 2 and 3 so that we could put the query text
> > at the end.
>
> Well, the current ordering is definitely historical rather than
> designed, but I'm hesitant to do more than minor tweaking. Even if we
> think/hope it won't break applications, people are probably used to
> seeing a particular ordering.
>
> I'm not necessarily dead set against it though. I guess if we were
> to do what you suggest, we'd end up with
>
> identity:
> datid | oid |
> datname | name |
> procpid | integer |
> usesysid | oid |
> usename | name |
> application_name | text |
> session:
> client_addr | inet |
> client_port | integer |
> backend_start | timestamp with time zone |
> transaction:
> xact_start | timestamp with time zone |
> query:
> query_start | timestamp with time zone |
> waiting | boolean |
> current_query | text |
>
> or possibly that plus relocate procpid somewhere else. Anyone think
> this is sufficiently better to justify possible confusion?
Grouping these this way will help a lot more people, namely the future
ones, than it can possibly confuse :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate