Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:38 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:42:45PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> >> > Looks like it. A quick search revealed "parallel worker" and "logical
> >> > replication worker". src/test/modules/ also show "test_shm_mq" and
> >> > "worker_spi", but it seems those don't need to be publicly documented.
> >> > If that sounds right I'll update the patch to include the first two.
> >>
> >> Just wondering: do we actually need to include in the docs this list at
> >> all? This is a recipe to forget its update each time a new backend type
> >> is added.
> >>
> >
> > Sure, but how will we justify documenting (autovacuum launcher and
> > autovacuum worker) and not (logical replication launcher and logical
> > replication worker)? I think we can document the type of workers that
> > are part of core-server functionality. We can make some generic
> > statement on the workers that can be launched by extensions.
>
> How about something like the attached?
>

Don't you need to remove <literal>background worker</literal>?

+ In addition, extensions may have additional types.

How about: "In addition, background workers registered by extensions
may have additional types."?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com