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

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:10 AM, andres@anarazel.de <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > I do think there's a considerable benefit in improving the
> > > instrumentation here, but his strikes me as making live more complex for
> > > more users than it makes it easier. At the very least this should be
> > > split into two fields (type & what we're actually waiting on). I also
> > > strongly suspect we shouldn't use in band signaling ("process not
> > > waiting"), but rather make the field NULL if we're not waiting on
> > > anything.
> >
> > +1 for splitting it into two fields.
> >
>
> I will take care of this.