On 6/2/17 15:08, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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.
If there are no new insights into this by Monday, I will commit patches that remove the setting of application_name, which was originally complained about, and postpone the rest of this patch. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
