On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Kuntal Ghosh > <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I do have extended localBackendStatusTable with slots for non-backend >> processes. But, I've renamed it as localProcStatusTable since it >> includes all processes. I'll keep the variable name as >> localBackendStatusTable in the updated patch to avoid any confusion. >> I've extended BackendStatusArray to store auxiliary processes. >> Backends use slots indexed in the range from 1 to MaxBackends >> (inclusive), so we use MaxBackends + AuxProcType + 1 as the index of >> the slot for an auxiliary process. > > I think the subject of this the thread, for which I'm probably to > blame, is bad terminology. The processes we're talking about exposing > in pg_stat_activity here are really backends, too, I think. They're > just ... special backends. So I would tend to avoid any backend -> > process type of renaming.
FWIW, my impression on the matter matches what is written in this paragraph. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
