|From:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: sync process names between ps and pg_stat_activity|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 9/19/17 21:30, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
>>> Personally, I prefer "wal writer", "wal sender" and "wal receiver"
>>> that separate words as other process names. But I don't mind leaving
>>> them as they are now.
>> If we were to change those, that would break existing queries for
>> pg_stat_activity. That's new in PG10, so we could change it if we were
>> really eager. But it's probably not worth bothering. Then again, there
>> is pg_stat_wal_receiver. So it's all totally inconsistent. Not sure
>> where to go.
> OK, I'm comfortable with as it is now.
> I made this ready for committer. You can fix the following and commit the patch. Thank you.
Committed. Thank you.
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2017-09-20 12:59:58||Re: Error: dsa_area could not attach to a segment that has been freed|
|Previous Message||Fabien COELHO||2017-09-20 12:59:03||Re: psql - add ability to test whether a variable exists|