On 25/09/17 16:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/31/17 23:22, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> One open question is how to treat a missing (empty) bgw_type. I >>> currently fill in bgw_name as a fallback. We could also treat it as an >>> error or a warning as a transition measure. >> >> Hm. Why not reporting an empty type string as NULL at SQL level and >> just let it empty them? I tend to like more interfaces that report >> exactly what is exactly registered at memory-level, because that's >> easier to explain to users and in the documentation, as well as easier >> to interpret and easier for module developers. > > But then background workers that are not updated for, say, PG11 will not > show anything useful in pg_stat_activity. We should have some amount of > backward compatibility here. >
Maybe the empty bgw_type could mean just "bgworker"? -- 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
