Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

From: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
Date: 2019-11-05 05:29:03
Message-ID: CAGz5QCJ=5nQP7aYXOeYkjXTi2BX2u0_kmrcuPQtRAMG9oBWjPw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:09 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> >
> > 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.)
> >
> Yep, it is pointless. BackendType that open connections to server are:
> autovacuum worker, client backend, background worker, wal sender. I
> also notice that pg_stat_gssapi is in the same boat as pg_stat_ssl and
> we should constraint the rows to backend types that open connections.
> I'm attaching a patch to list only connections in those system views.
>
Yeah, We should hide those. As Robert mentioned, I think checking
whether 'client_port IS NOT NULL' is a better approach than checking
the backend_type. The patch looks good to me.

--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-11-05 05:36:18 Re: v12.0: ERROR: could not find pathkey item to sort
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2019-11-05 04:59:25 Re: Keep compiler silence (clang 10, implicit conversion from 'long' to 'double' )