| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2017-06-05 19:32:06 |
| Message-ID: | e6c6e528-b20a-519f-c9a2-b01f63edf62f@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/06/17 05:18, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/2/17 16:44, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> However, I am not sure about the bgw_name_extra. I think I would have
>> preferred keeping full bgw_name field which would be used where full
>> name is needed and bgw_type where only the worker type is used. The
>> concatenation just doesn't sit well with me, especially if it requires
>> the bgw_name_extra to start with space.
>
> I see your point. There are also some i18n considerations to think through.
>
So thinking a bit more, I wonder if we could simply do following:
- remove the application_name from logical workers
- add bgw_type and use it for worker type (if empty, use 'bgworker' like
now), would be probably nice if parallel workers added something to
indicate they are parallel workers there as well
- remove the 'bgworker:' prefix for ps display and just use the bgw_name
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-05 19:34:33 | Re: Make ANALYZE more selective about what is a "most common value"? |
| Previous Message | Jim Van Fleet | 2017-06-05 19:30:47 | HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts |