On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:38 AM Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:42:45PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
>> > Looks like it. A quick search revealed "parallel worker" and "logical
>> > replication worker". src/test/modules/ also show "test_shm_mq" and
>> > "worker_spi", but it seems those don't need to be publicly documented.
>> > If that sounds right I'll update the patch to include the first two.
>>
>> Just wondering: do we actually need to include in the docs this list at
>> all? This is a recipe to forget its update each time a new backend type
>> is added.
>>
>
> Sure, but how will we justify documenting (autovacuum launcher and
> autovacuum worker) and not (logical replication launcher and logical
> replication worker)? I think we can document the type of workers that
> are part of core-server functionality. We can make some generic
> statement on the workers that can be launched by extensions.
How about something like the attached?
-John Naylor
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml
index add71458e2..886477cf09 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml
@@ -804,10 +804,13 @@ postgres 27093 0.0 0.0 30096 2752 ? Ss 11:34 0:00 postgres: ser
<entry><type>text</type></entry>
<entry>Type of current backend. Possible types are
<literal>autovacuum launcher</literal>, <literal>autovacuum worker</literal>,
+ <literal>logical replication launcher</literal>,
+ <literal>logical replication worker</literal>, <literal>parallel worker</literal>,
<literal>background worker</literal>, <literal>background writer</literal>,
<literal>client backend</literal>, <literal>checkpointer</literal>,
<literal>startup</literal>, <literal>walreceiver</literal>,
<literal>walsender</literal> and <literal>walwriter</literal>.
+ In addition, extensions may have additional types.
</entry>
</row>
</tbody>
