On 2020-Jul-10, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:45:29PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I think it's overly verbose; all non-parallel backends are going to get > > their own PID twice, and I'm not sure this is going to be great to > > parse. I think it would be more sensible that if the process does not > > have a parent (leader), %P expands to empty. > > That's what's done. > > + <entry>Process ID of the parallel group leader if this process > was > + at some point involved in parallel query, otherwise null. For a > + parallel group leader itself, this field is set to its own > process > + ID.</entry> Oh, okay by me then. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
