| From: | Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: application_name in process name? |
| Date: | 2016-07-18 22:19:33 |
| Message-ID: | CANPAkgtbaxGF8uLX50FAqeEuGCPHUDbWbtqcWVb_2MmShEDKtw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It occurs to me that we could also remove the update_process_title GUC:
> what you would do is configure a process_title pattern that doesn't
> include the %-escape for current command tag, and the infrastructure
> could notice that that escape isn't present and skip unnecessary updates.
> The same kind of trick could be used for other potentially-expensive
> items like the lock "waiting" flag.
>
This seems like an interesting project for learning my way around gucs and
logging. Could you elaborate a little
on the cost considerations?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-18 22:30:17 | Re: application_name in process name? |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-07-18 22:17:36 | Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal |