From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Tracking wait event for latches) |
Date: | 2017-03-22 22:09:47 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQje-=SW3DudGhUWJNXLqsBDXN2APbXR_1+phmZBXnXPw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I mean, your argument boils down to "somebody might want to
> deliberately hide things from pg_stat_activity". But that's not
> really a mode we support in general, and supporting it only for
> certain cases doesn't seem like something that this patch should be
> about. We could add an option to BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection
> and BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnectionByOid to suppress it, if it's
> something that somebody wants, but actually I'd be more inclined to
> think that everybody (who has a shared memory connection) should go
> into the machinery and then security-filtering should be left to some
> higher-level facility that can make policy decisions rather than being
> hard-coded in the individual modules.
>
> But I'm slightly confused as to how this even arises. Background
> workers already show up in pg_stat_activity output, or at least I sure
> think they do. So why does this patch need to make any change to that
> case at all?
When working on a couple of bgworkers some time ago, I recalled that
they only showed up in pg_stat_activity only if calling
pgstat_report_activity() in them. Just looking again, visibly I was
mistaken, they do indeed show up when if WaitLatch() or
pgstat_report_activity() are not used. Please let me discard that
remark.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-03-22 22:55:53 | Re: Logical decoding on standby |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2017-03-22 22:05:16 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |