Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
Date: 2019-11-04 13:25:59
Message-ID: 20191104132559.GA18441@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Sep-04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> I just noticed that we list auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl:
> But this seems pointless. Should we not hide those? Seems this only
> happened as an unintended side-effect of fc70a4b0df38. It appears to me
> that we should redefine that view to restrict backend_type that's
> 'client backend' (maybe include 'wal receiver'/'wal sender' also, not
> sure.)


Robert, Kuntal, any opinion on this?

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Павел Ерёмин 2019-11-04 13:39:44 Re: 64 bit transaction id
Previous Message Asif Rehman 2019-11-04 13:08:55 Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup