| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add "io worker" as backend_type to the pg_stat_activity documentation |
| Date: | 2026-07-21 16:48:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEDY0GkP4Tapn+qtaxB6aNtjPzqozRL8_Hf1Sg3B+H+8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 6:59 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2026-07-21 at 17:02 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 09:58:34AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > I happened to notice that "io worker" was missing in the list of
> > > backend types in the pg_stat_activity documentation.
> >
> > Right.
Isn't it better to add the other missing process names as well, such as
slotsync worker, data checksums launcher, data checksums worker, and
REPACK decoding worker?
Also, the current list says "logical replication worker", but that isn't
an actual process name. It refers to four different worker types:
logical replication apply worker, logical replication parallel worker,
logical replication sequence synchronization worker, and logical replication
table synchronization worker. Isn't it better to list those actual
process names instead?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian Brennglass | 2026-07-21 17:30:13 | Re: [PATCH] doc: outline all planner nodes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2026-07-21 16:06:31 | Re: Please clarify that Timestamp with Timezone doesn't preserve the timezone. |