On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Petr Jelinek
<petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 02/06/17 21:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 6/2/17 02:31, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> 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.
> Agreed with this.
> However, I am not sure about the bgw_name_extra. I think I would have
> preferred keeping full bgw_name field which would be used where full
> name is needed and bgw_type where only the worker type is used. The
> concatenation just doesn't sit well with me, especially if it requires
> the bgw_name_extra to start with space.

Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

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

Reply via email to