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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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.