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. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers