X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3622752E50 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:33:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 68882-01 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:33:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gauss.credativ.com (ipx11302.ipxserver.de [212.112.227.254]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D207052B80 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:33:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from bell.credativ.de (p50890224.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.2.36]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gauss.credativ.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448B4D7648; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:37:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Peter Eisentraut To: Halley Pacheco de Oliveira Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.3 Documentation - Chapter 23. Monitoring Database Activity Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:33:43 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org References: <20050726100642.91263.qmail@web52708.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20050726100642.91263.qmail@web52708.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507261233.44176.peter_e@gmx.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.05 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/24 X-Sequence-Number: 3150 Am Dienstag, 26. Juli 2005 12:06 schrieb Halley Pacheco de Oliveira: > The user, database, and connection source host items remain the same for > the life of the client connection, but the activity indicator changes. > So the database name didn't remain the same, neither the process id. > Connecting to another database creates a brand new connection using other > server process as it seems to be. I think it should be written in this > paragraph. I couldn't imagine that, for me the process was still the same. What is the problem here? You create a new connection, so you get the information in the new connection, as documented. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/