Re: bgw_type (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)

2017-09-29 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/27/17 18:59, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > The patch applies with minor fuzz, compiles without introduced warnings and > work the way it says on the tin. The utility of the proposed functionality is > a clear win so +1 on getting that in. I have committed this patch incorporating the feedback

Re: bgw_type (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)

2017-09-29 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 8/31/17 23:22, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:49 AM, 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

Re: bgw_type (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)

2017-09-27 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 31 Aug 2017, at 21:49, 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

Re: bgw_type (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)

2017-09-25 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 25/09/17 16:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/31/17 23:22, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> One open question is how to treat a missing (empty) bgw_type. I >>> currently fill in bgw_name as a fallback. We could also treat it as an >>> error or a warning as a transition measure. >> >> Hm. Why not

Re: bgw_type (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)

2017-09-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 8/31/17 23:22, Michael Paquier wrote: >> One open question is how to treat a missing (empty) bgw_type. I >> currently fill in bgw_name as a fallback. We could also treat it as an >> error or a warning as a transition measure. > > Hm. Why not reporting an empty type string as NULL at SQL

Re: bgw_type (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)

2017-08-31 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:49 AM, 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

bgw_type (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?)

2017-08-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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.