Re: Michael Paquier 2016-02-10 <CAB7nPqS=wbbzzbcty1kyn-5y9bpxz+dejbfcctebf06ef2u...@mail.gmail.com> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Frequently when reading postgres logs to do some post mortem analysis > > I'm left wondering what process emitted an error/log message. After the > > fact it's often hard to know wether an error message was emitted by a > > user backend or by something internal, say the checkpointer or > > autovacuum. Logging all process starts is often impractical given the > > log volume that causes. > > > > So I'm proposing adding an escape displaying the process title (say 'k' > > for kind?). So %k would emit something like "autovacuum worker process", > > "wal sender process" etc. > > It would be nice to get something consistent between the ps output and > this new prefix, say with for example a miscadmin.h parameter like > MyProcName. > > > I'm thinking it might make sense to give normal connections "" as the > > name, they're usually already discernible. > > Yeah, that sounds fine for me. What about background workers? I would > think that they should use BackgroundWorker->bgw_name.
(Rediscovering an old horse) Couldn't these processes just set %a = application_name? (This would obviously need %q to be taught that %a is always valid.) Christoph -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers