Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> This is an ugly patch. Why not *one* test of the GUC variable, inside >> set_ps_display(), and no side-effects on callers? You would need to >> force an initial update from init_ps_display, but that only requires a >> small amount of code refactoring inside ps_status.c.
> Consider all the helper processes that set their process title. The > only thing I can think of is to add a boolean to set_ps_display() so say > whether this is per-command set or not. Is that your idea? No, that's not what I said at all. Currently init_ps_display doesn't actually force the display to update; it's left to the first set_ps_display call to do that. If we made init_ps_display update the status unconditionally, then set_ps_display could be a conditional no-op, and in the helper process setup code /* Identify myself via ps */ init_ps_display("autovacuum process", "", ""); set_ps_display(""); we could remove the now-unnecessary set_ps_display("") calls, but the other set_ps_display() calls would stay exactly like they are. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match