On 02/06/17 21:05, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/2/17 02:31, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> I'd say current patch makes the user difficult to >> distinguish between apply worker and table sync worker. > > We could arguably make apply workers and sync workers have different > bgw_type values. But if you are interested in that level of detail, you > should perhaps look at pg_stat_subscription. pg_stat_activity only > contains the "common" data, and the process-specific data is in other views. >
Agreed with this. 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. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers