From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl |
Date: | 2019-11-12 21:50:08 |
Message-ID: | 20191112215008.GA607@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Nov-04, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Based on what we claim in our docs, it does look like 'client_port IS
> NOT NULL' should work. I do think we might want to update the docs to
> make it a bit more explicit, what we say now is:
>
> TCP port number that the client is using for communication with this
> backend, or -1 if a Unix socket is used
>
> We don't explain there that NULL means the backend doesn't have an
> external connection even though plenty of those entries show up in every
> instance of PG. Perhaps we should add this:
>
> If this field is null, it indicates that this is an internal process
> such as autovacuum.
>
> Which is what we say for 'client_addr'.
Seems sensible. Done. Thanks
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-11-12 21:55:46 | Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-11-12 21:49:33 | Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl |