On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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. > +1.
-- Thanks & Regards, Kuntal Ghosh EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers