On 18/04/17 19:18, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 18/04/17 18:24, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> I don't see why we need to do that. It is showing the correct >>> information, isn't it? > >> It does, but it's also one of the things Tom complained about and I >> think he is right in that at least values for launcher should be >> filtered out there as there is not much meaning in what is shown for >> launcher. The ugly part is that we can't tell it's launcher in any other >> way than comparing bgw_library_name and bgw_function_name to specific >> values. > > I think you're thinking about it wrong. To my mind the issue is that > there should be some generic way to determine that a bgworker process > is or is not laboring on behalf of an identifiable user. It's great > that we can tell which user it is when there is one, but clearly some > bgworkers will be providing general services that aren't associated with > a single user. So it should be possible to set the userID to zero or > some such when the bgworker is one that isn't associated with a > particular user. Maybe the owning user needs to become an additional > parameter passed in struct BackgroundWorker. >
We can already do that. In fact after I wrote the above I thought we could add some kind of boolean in the style of am_bootstrap_superuser as BOOTSTRAP_SUPERUSER is what those bgworkers get assigned. I don't like the name much though (am_bootstrap_superuser) as this should not be associated with bootstrap IMHO. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
