On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Petr Jelinek
> <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> 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.

Yes, I don't thnk as well that this has any types of gain. With only
bgw_name, it is still possible to append the same prefix to all the
bgworkers of the same type, and do a search on pg_stat_activity using
'~' for example to fetch all the workers with the same string.

>> The concatenation just doesn't sit well with me, especially if it requires
>> the bgw_name_extra to start with space.
> +1.

That's not friendly.

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

Reply via email to