| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: bgw_type (was Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?) |
| Date: | 2017-09-25 14:45:28 |
| Message-ID: | c063d3ee-be85-279b-fbf6-022ff7510988@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 level and
> just let it empty them? I tend to like more interfaces that report
> exactly what is exactly registered at memory-level, because that's
> easier to explain to users and in the documentation, as well as easier
> to interpret and easier for module developers.
But then background workers that are not updated for, say, PG11 will not
show anything useful in pg_stat_activity. We should have some amount of
backward compatibility here.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2017-09-25 14:48:45 | Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-25 14:42:59 | Re: BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? |