On 9/19/17 21:30, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
>>> Personally, I prefer "wal writer", "wal sender" and "wal receiver"
>>> that separate words as other process names. But I don't mi
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> As an aside, is there a reason why the archiver process is not included
>>> in pg_stat_activity?
>> It's not connected to shared memory.
> Do you think that monitoring would be a reason su
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> As an aside, is there a reason why the archiver process is not included
>> in pg_stat_activity?
>
> It's not connected to shared memory.
Do you think that monitoring would be a reason sufficient to do so? My
personal o
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
> > Personally, I prefer "wal writer", "wal sender" and "wal receiver"
> > that separate words as other process names. But I don't mind leaving
> > them as they are now.
>
> If we
On 9/18/17 02:07, MauMau wrote:
> (1)
> In the following comment, it's better to change "wal sender process"
> to "walsender" to follow the modified name.
>
> - * postgres: wal sender process
> + * postgres: walsender
> *
> * To achieve that, we pass "wal sender process"
From: Peter Eisentraut
> The process names shown in pg_stat_activity.backend_type as of PG10
and
> the process names used in the ps display are in some cases
gratuitously
> different, so here is a patch to make them more alike. Of course it
> could be debated in some cases which spelling was bette
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> As an aside, is there a reason why the archiver process is not included
> in pg_stat_activity?
It's not connected to shared memory.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to you
The process names shown in pg_stat_activity.backend_type as of PG10 and
the process names used in the ps display are in some cases gratuitously
different, so here is a patch to make them more alike. Of course it
could be debated in some cases which spelling was better.
As an aside, is there a rea
