On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> Indeed, and the query field does not have much more meaning for a WAL >> sender. So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and HEAD. I have thought >> about reporting that to pgstat in StartReplication(), but as there is >> some error handling there I'd think that WalSndLoop() is a better >> place to call pgstat_report_activity, as per the attached. > > As long as it's a fixed string there's no reason to set it repeatedly, > so this placement looks fine for now. We can reconsider when/if we > make it variable and decide what is going to drive it. > > On reflection, maybe s/walsender/WAL sender/? It doesn't look like > we really use the word "walsender" in user-facing docs.
Indeed, that may be better for clarity. Except from the release notes, walsender is mentioned a couple of times in the protocol docs, as *walsender mode*: src/sgml/high-availability.sgml: a corresponding walsender process in the primary. src/sgml/protocol.sgml: Copy-both mode is initiated when a backend in walsender mode src/sgml/protocol.sgml:of <literal>true</> tells the backend to go into walsender mode, wherein a src/sgml/protocol.sgml:the simple query protocol can be used in walsender mode. src/sgml/protocol.sgml:Passing <literal>database</> as the value instructs walsender to connect to src/sgml/protocol.sgml:The commands accepted in walsender mode are: So that looked adapted to me at first sight. Actually, the text had better be "WAL sender" and not "walsender" in high-availability, no? That refers to the process, and not the backend mode. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
