Re: [ADMIN] Determine current running query,

Adam Witney

unread,

Mar 29, 2005, 10:59:33 AM3/29/05

to

On 29/3/05 4:27 pm, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Adam Witney <awi...@sghms.ac.uk> writes:
>> Shouldn't there be something in current_query?
>
> Only if (a) you have stats_command_string turned on, *and* (b) you
> are a superuser or the owner of the target process.

I am logged in as the superuser, and I just switched stats_command_string
on. Table now looks like this

I did find a reference on google to the fact that there was/is a max query
size length for this? I think this was for 7.3.5, is this still the case?
Maybe this is the reason it is not showing up (it is quite a large query
string)?

Thanks

Adam

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Scott Marlowe

unread,

Mar 29, 2005, 11:08:22 AM3/29/05

to

On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 09:50, Adam Witney wrote:
> On 29/3/05 4:27 pm, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > Adam Witney <awi...@sghms.ac.uk> writes:
> >> Shouldn't there be something in current_query?
> >
> > Only if (a) you have stats_command_string turned on, *and* (b) you
> > are a superuser or the owner of the target process.
>
> I am logged in as the superuser, and I just switched stats_command_string
> on. Table now looks like this
>
> bugasbase=# SELECT * from pg_stat_activity ;
> datid | datname | procpid | usesysid | usename | current_query |
> query_start
> ----------+-----------+---------+----------+---------+---------------+------
> --------------------------
> 80573819 | bugasbase | 23197 | 1 | pgsql | <IDLE> |
> 29/03/2005 17:03:25.911288 BST
> 80573819 | bugasbase | 23195 | 109 | lubrook | |
>
> I did find a reference on google to the fact that there was/is a max query
> size length for this? I think this was for 7.3.5, is this still the case?
> Maybe this is the reason it is not showing up (it is quite a large query
> string)?

You might want to post your reference. There hasn't been a built-in
query length limit for quite some time now. MySQL's benchmark, by the
way, erroneously listed postgresql as having a 16 meg max query size
because (tada!) they had a 16 meg buffer allocated in their benchmark
and when it filled up and errored out the size was 16 meg. I don't
believe this was ever fixed, either in their code or in the report they
had for a very long time on their web site. And it was pointed out
again and again, by me.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majo...@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Adam Witney

unread,

Mar 29, 2005, 11:15:58 AM3/29/05

to

On 29/3/05 5:06 pm, "Scott Marlowe" <smar...@g2switchworks.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 09:50, Adam Witney wrote:
>> On 29/3/05 4:27 pm, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Witney <awi...@sghms.ac.uk> writes:
>>>> Shouldn't there be something in current_query?
>>>
>>> Only if (a) you have stats_command_string turned on, *and* (b) you
>>> are a superuser or the owner of the target process.
>>
>> I am logged in as the superuser, and I just switched stats_command_string
>> on. Table now looks like this
>>
>> bugasbase=# SELECT * from pg_stat_activity ;
>> datid | datname | procpid | usesysid | usename | current_query |
>> query_start
>> ----------+-----------+---------+----------+---------+---------------+------
>> --------------------------
>> 80573819 | bugasbase | 23197 | 1 | pgsql | <IDLE> |
>> 29/03/2005 17:03:25.911288 BST
>> 80573819 | bugasbase | 23195 | 109 | lubrook | |
>>
>> I did find a reference on google to the fact that there was/is a max query
>> size length for this? I think this was for 7.3.5, is this still the case?
>> Maybe this is the reason it is not showing up (it is quite a large query
>> string)?
>

> Note that there is a limit to what gets stored in the table, but I think
> it is the first 255 characters. i.e. you should see something.

Yes you are right, I misunderstood the google reference I found:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-novice/2004-02/msg00187.php

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend