On 03/06/17 05:18, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/2/17 16:44, Petr Jelinek wrote: >> 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. > > I see your point. There are also some i18n considerations to think through. >
So thinking a bit more, I wonder if we could simply do following: - remove the application_name from logical workers - add bgw_type and use it for worker type (if empty, use 'bgworker' like now), would be probably nice if parallel workers added something to indicate they are parallel workers there as well - remove the 'bgworker:' prefix for ps display and just use the bgw_name -- 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
