Hi, On 2016-03-11 11:16:32 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > It seems rather worthwhile to think about how we can expand the coverage > of progress tracking to other types of background processes.
WRT the progress reporting patch, I think we should split (as afaics was discussed in the thread for a while) off the new part of PgBackendStatus into it's own structure. That'd not just allow using this from non-backend processes, but would also have the advantage that the normal PgBackendStatus' changecount doesn't advance quite so rapidly. E.g. when reporting progress of a vacuum, the changecount will probably change at quite a rapid rate, but that's uninteresting for e.g. pg_stat_activity. > Similarly for the wait event stuff - checkpointer, wal writer, > background writer are in many cases processes that very often are > blocked on locks, IO and such. Thus restricting the facility to > database connected processes seems like a loss. I think one way to address this would be to not only report PgBackendStatus type processes in pg_stat_activity. While that'd obviously be a compatibility break, I think it'd be an improvement. Regards, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
