* 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.




Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to