On 6/2/17 23:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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.
Done, and added the rest of the patch to the next commit fest: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/14/1165/ -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers