* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> The fact that the pg_stat_replication view does show walsender processes > >> seems like possibly a reasonable argument for not showing them in > >> pg_stat_activity. But we'd have to do some rejiggering of the view > >> definition to make that happen. > > > We may actually had better show WAL sender processes in > > pg_stat_activity. An argument in favor of that is the tracking of > > WaitEventSet events (or latches if you want). > > Also, walsenders count against MaxBackends don't they? So not showing > them could contribute to confusion about why an installation is hitting > the connection limit. > > If we do keep them in the view, I would definitely vote for having them > set their "query" fields to something that shows they're walsenders. > It's awfully late to be doing anything complicated there for 9.6, > but we could just set the query to "walsender" and plan to improve > on that in future releases.
+1 Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
