On 6/2/17 02:31, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Here is a proposed solution that splits bgw_name into bgw_type and >> bgw_name_extra. bgw_type shows up in pg_stat_activity.backend_type. >> Uses of application_name are removed, because they are no longer >> necessary to identity the process type. > > Hmm, is there any reasons why bgw_name_extra string doesn't appear in > pg_stat_activity?
That's the whole point: We want to be able to group similar process types. The _extra part is particular to a single process, so it might contain a specific OID or PID it is working on. The bgw_type is common for all workers of that kind. > I'd say current patch makes the user difficult to > distinguish between apply worker and table sync worker. We could arguably make apply workers and sync workers have different bgw_type values. But if you are interested in that level of detail, you should perhaps look at pg_stat_subscription. pg_stat_activity only contains the "common" data, and the process-specific data is in other views. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers