| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Peter Eisentraut' <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(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 |
| Date: | 2017-09-20 01:30:53 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F7CED38@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
> > * To achieve that, we pass "wal sender process" as username and
> > username
>
> good catch
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-09-20 01:44:46 | Re: SCRAM in the PG 10 release notes |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-09-20 01:14:41 | Re: sync process names between ps and pg_stat_activity |