Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive

On 2015-06-25 16:26:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Won't leaving former contents as it is (until the next thing is being
> blocked) could give misleading information.  Currently we mark 'waiting'
> as false as soon as Heavy Weight Lock is over, so following that way
> sounds more appropriate, is there any reason why you want it differently
> than what we are doing currently?

But we don't do the same for query, so I don't think that says much. I
think it'd be useful because it gives you a bit more chance to see what
you blocked on last, even if the time the backend was blocked was very
short.

Greetings,

Andres Freund