From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl |
Date: | 2019-11-04 14:28:30 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobz8yTDbXMmefKAAUkJ+WpFWQPMy9+GFipbn-NAZuqjtQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2019-Sep-04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I just noticed that we list auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl:
> [...]
> > But this seems pointless. Should we not hide those? Seems this only
> > happened as an unintended side-effect of fc70a4b0df38. It appears to me
> > that we should redefine that view to restrict backend_type that's
> > 'client backend' (maybe include 'wal receiver'/'wal sender' also, not
> > sure.)
>
> [crickets]
>
> Robert, Kuntal, any opinion on this?
I think if I were doing something about it, I'd probably try to filter
on a field that directly represents whether there is a connection,
rather than checking the backend type. That way, if the list of
backend types that have client connections changes later, there's
nothing to update. Like "WHERE client_port IS NOT NULL," or something
of that sort.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-11-04 14:53:36 | Re: v12 and pg_restore -f- |
Previous Message | Павел Ерёмин | 2019-11-04 13:39:44 | Re: 64 bit transaction id |