Hi,
On 2024-02-16 21:41:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Maybe I am missing something, but why aren't we just getting the value from
> > the leader's entry, instead of copying it?
>
> The answer to that would be "because I didn't think of it" :)
:)
> Were you thinking of something like the attached?
> @@ -435,6 +438,22 @@ pg_stat_get_activity(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
> {
> values[29] = Int32GetDatum(leader->pid);
> nulls[29] = false;
> +
> + /*
> + * The authenticated user in a parallel
> worker is the same as the one in
> + * the leader, so look it up there.
> + */
> + if (leader->backendId)
> + {
> + LocalPgBackendStatus
> *leaderstat = pgstat_get_local_beentry_by_backend_id(leader->backendId);
> +
> + if
> (leaderstat->backendStatus.st_auth_method != uaReject &&
> leaderstat->backendStatus.st_auth_method != uaImplicitReject)
> + {
> + nulls[31] = nulls[32] =
> false;
> + values[31] =
> CStringGetTextDatum(hba_authname(leaderstat->backendStatus.st_auth_method));
> + values[32] =
> CStringGetTextDatum(leaderstat->backendStatus.st_auth_identity);
> + }
> + }
Mostly, yes.
I only skimmed the patch, but it sure looks to me that we could end up with
none of the branches setting 31,32, so I think you'd have to make sure to
handle that case.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
