Re: ps command does not show walsender's connected db

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: bt22nakamorit <bt22nakamorit(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ps command does not show walsender's connected db
Date: 2022-10-07 07:59:48
Message-ID: c10807cf-c51e-5f59-3f8a-0980a7d306fd@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2022/10/06 22:30, bt22nakamorit wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When walsender process is evoked for logical replication, walsender is connected to a database of the subscriber.
> Naturally, ones would want the name of the connected database to show in the entry of ps command for walsender.
> In detail, running ps aux during the logical replication shows results like the following:
> postgres=# \! ps aux | grep postgres;
> ...
> ACTC-I\+ 14575  0.0  0.0 298620 14228 ?        Ss   18:22   0:00 postgres: walsender ACTC-I\nakamorit [local] S
>
> However, since walsender is connected to a database of the subscriber in logical replication,

s/subscriber/publisher ?

> it should show the database name, as in the following:
> postgres=# \! ps aux | grep postgres
> ...
> ACTC-I\+ 15627  0.0  0.0 298624 13936 ?        Ss   15:45   0:00 postgres: walsender ACTC-I\nakamorit postgres
>
> Showing the database name should not apply in streaming replication though since walsender process is not connected to any specific database.
>
> The attached patch adds the name of the connected database to the ps entry of walsender in logical replication, and not in streaming replication.
>
> Thoughts?

+1

Thanks for the patch!

-
+ printf("fork child process\n");
+ printf(" am_walsender: %d\n", am_walsender);
+ printf(" am_db_walsender: %d\n", am_db_walsender);

The patch seems to include the debug code accidentally.
Except this, the patch looks good to me.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2022-10-07 08:08:35 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Previous Message Amit Langote 2022-10-07 07:31:16 Re: ExecRTCheckPerms() and many prunable partitions