Re: IDLE in transaction introspection

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > It might be cleaner to use booleans:
> >     active:         t/f
> >     in transaction: t/f
> 
> I don't think so, because that makes some very strict assumptions that
> there are exactly four interesting states (an assumption that isn't
> even true today, to judge by the activity strings we're using now).

Well, we could use an optional "details" string for that.  If not, we
are still using the magic-string approach, which I thought we didn't
like.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +