On 12/3/20, 1:58 PM, "Justin Pryzby" <pry...@telsasoft.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:18:07PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> I considered also checking that update_process_title was enabled, but >> I figured that these ps display updates should happen sparsely enough >> that it wouldn't make much of an impact. > > Since bf68b79e5, update_ps_display is responsible for checking > update_process_title. Its other, remaining uses are apparently just acting as > minor optimizations to guard against useless snprintf's. > > See also > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1288021.1600178478%40sss.pgh.pa.us > in which (I just saw) Tom wrote: > >> Seems like a good argument, but you'd have to be careful about the >> final state when you stop overriding update_process_title --- it can't >> be left looking like it's still-in-progress on some random WAL file. > > I think that's a live problem, not just a concern for that patch. > It was exactly my complaint leading to this thread: > >> But runs a checkpoint, which can take a long time, while the "ps" display >> still >> says "recovering NNNNNNNN".
Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing this out. Nathan
