On 5/30/17 23:10, Peter Eisentraut 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.
> This code appears to be buggy because I sometimes get NULL results of
> the backend_type lookup, implying that it couldn't find the background
> worker slot.  This needs another look.

I would like some more input on this proposal, especially from those
have have engineered the extended pg_stat_activity content.

If we don't come to a quick conclusion on this, I'd be content to leave
PG10 as is and put this patch into the next commit fest.

Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to