| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name? |
| Date: | 2017-04-18 16:24:40 |
| Message-ID: | 35251f7d-dac2-35a4-18c6-cc7d09064ec7@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/18/17 12:13, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> We can definitely easily detect that the bgworker is internal one by
> library_name equals 'postgres' so we can easily remove the usesysid and
> usename based on that.
I don't see why we need to do that. It is showing the correct
information, isn't it?
> But that does not solve the issue of identifying
> the processes in pg_stat_activity as logical replication laucher/worker.
> I wonder if it would be okay to set backend_type to bgw_name for
> internal workers and just leave the external ones as it is (or solve
> them in v11 with some proper API) as we can control the length of name
> there (it will still be longer than the values for other things but
> maybe not too much).
I think showing bgw_name as backend_type always sounds reasonable. No
need to treat external implementations differently.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-18 16:26:00 | Re: Logical replication launcher uses wal_retrieve_retry_interval |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-04-18 16:23:47 | Re: scram and \password |