Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2019-11-04 14:28:30
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobz8yTDbXMmefKAAUkJ+WpFWQPMy9+GFipbn-NAZuqjtQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.)
>
> [crickets]
>
> Robert, Kuntal, any opinion on this?

I think if I were doing something about it, I'd probably try to filter
on a field that directly represents whether there is a connection,
rather than checking the backend type. That way, if the list of
backend types that have client connections changes later, there's
nothing to update. Like "WHERE client_port IS NOT NULL," or something
of that sort.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-11-04 14:53:36 Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-
Previous Message Павел Ерёмин 2019-11-04 13:39:44 Re: 64 bit transaction id