|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|To:||Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: backend type in log_line_prefix?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:30:07PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:38:53 -0400, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote in
> > Patch applied to master, thanks.
> The patch (8e8a0becb3) named archiver process as just "archiver". On
> the other hand the discussion in the thread  was going to name the
> process as "WAL/wal archiver". As all other processes related to WAL
> are named as walreceiver, walsender, walwriter, wouldn't we name the
> process like "wal archiver"?
> : https://email@example.com
Agreed. I ended up moving "wal" as a separate word, since it looks
cleaner; patch attached. Tools that look for the backend type in
pg_stat_activity would need to be adjusted; it would be an
incompatibility. Maybe changing it would cause too much disruption.
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
|Next Message||Tomas Vondra||2020-04-01 01:59:25||Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)|
|Previous Message||Kyotaro Horiguchi||2020-04-01 01:25:43||Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots|