On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 10:55:20PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I propose a little refactoring, attached, to replace the "isRegularBackend" > field in PGPROC with full "backendType". > > Andres briefly suggested this a while back [1]: > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 at 22:13, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> > wrote: >> Or we could have a copy of the backend type in PGPROC. > > but we didn't follow up on that approach. I don't see why, it seems so much > simpler than what we ended up doing. Am I missing something?
At a glance, it looks reasonable to me. I don't recall whether I explored this approach, but at the very least I'm unaware of any reason it wouldn't work. > @@ -684,7 +684,7 @@ InitAuxiliaryProcess(void) > MyProc->databaseId = InvalidOid; > MyProc->roleId = InvalidOid; > MyProc->tempNamespaceId = InvalidOid; > - MyProc->isRegularBackend = false; > + MyProc->backendType = B_INVALID; > MyProc->delayChkptFlags = 0; > MyProc->statusFlags = 0; > MyProc->lwWaiting = LW_WS_NOT_WAITING; Hm. So for auxiliary processes, this would always be unset? That appears to be alright for today's use-cases, but it could be a problem down the road. -- nathan
