On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:37 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:34 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments, the attached v12 patch has the changes for the > > > same. > > > > I have reviewed this patch and have some comments on v12-0001, > > > > 1. > > + This feature is not supported for the postmaster, logger, > > checkpointer, > > + walwriter, background writer or statistics collector process. This > > > > > > Comment says it is not supported for postmaster, logger, checkpointer > > etc, but I just tried and it is working for checkpointer and walwriter > > processes, can you explain in comments why do we not want to support > > for these processes? or the comment is old and now we are supporting > > for some of these processes. > > Please see the v12-0002 which will have the description modified.
Okay, now I see that. > > 2. > > postgres[64154]=# select pg_print_backtrace(64136); > > WARNING: 01000: PID 64136 is not a PostgreSQL server process > > LOCATION: pg_print_backtrace, signalfuncs.c:335 > > pg_print_backtrace > > -------------------- > > f > > > > > > For postmaster I am getting this WARNING "PID 64136 is not a > > PostgreSQL server process", even if we don't want to support this > > process I don't think this message is good. > > This is a generic message that is coming from pg_signal_backend, not > related to Vignesh's patch. I agree with you that emitting a "not > postgres server process" for the postmaster process which is the main > "postgres process" doesn't sound sensible. Please see there's already > a thread [1] and see the v1 patch [2] for changing this message. > Please let me know if you want me to revive that stalled thread? >[1] >https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACW7Rr-R7mBcBQiXWPp%3DJV5chajjTdudLiF5YcpW-BmHhg%40mail.gmail.com >[2] >https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACUGxedgYk-5nO8D2EJV2YHXnoycp_oqYAxDXTODhWkmkg%40mail.gmail.com Hmm, yeah I think I like the idea posted in [1], however, I could not open the link [2] -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
