| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: backend type in log_line_prefix? |
| Date: | 2020-04-01 13:44:01 |
| Message-ID: | 60cab27e-fad6-01d9-1950-cf5b16848595@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-04-01 03:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, it's probably not worth the change for that reason. There is no
confusion what the "archiver" is. Also, we have archive_mode,
archive_command, etc. without a wal_ prefix. Let's leave it as is.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-04-01 13:50:31 | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-04-01 13:32:35 | Re: Some problems of recovery conflict wait events |