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 79C6252E1C for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:26:57 -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 42702-10 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:26:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from isis.sigpipe.cz (fw.sigpipe.cz [62.245.70.224]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E473A52E28 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:26:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: by isis.sigpipe.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D70FF1F87BEF; Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:26:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:26:46 +0200 From: Roman Neuhauser To: Halley Pacheco de Oliveira Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, Peter Eisentraut Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.3 Documentation - Chapter 23. Monitoring Database Activity Message-ID: <20050726152646.GA62797@isis.sigpipe.cz> Mail-Followup-To: Halley Pacheco de Oliveira , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, Peter Eisentraut References: <200507261233.44176.peter_e@gmx.net> <20050726134855.26477.qmail@web52714.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050726134855.26477.qmail@web52714.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.351 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200507/26 X-Sequence-Number: 3152 # halleypo@yahoo.com.br / 2005-07-26 13:48:55 +0000: > --- Peter Eisentraut escreveu: > > > 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. > > There is no problem, just a surprise. Once I was connected to one database I didn't expect that a > connection to another database inside psql would close one process and fork a new process. Once > the chapter is about Monitoring Database Activity, I think that it would be good to alert the > readers about this fact. Maybe other users dont't expect this fact too. Just that. If anywhere, such information would belong to the psql(1) documentation, where it already is: \connect (or \c) [ dbname [ username ] ] Establishes a connection to a new database and/or under a user name. The previous connection is closed. -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991