On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Why would we need to backpatch this commit?
>
>> You are right there is no need to get that into 9.6. Sorry for the mistake.
>
> Oh, that's my fault, I'd incorrec
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Why would we need to backpatch this commit?
> You are right there is no need to get that into 9.6. Sorry for the mistake.
Oh, that's my fault, I'd incorrectly remembered this commit as having been
further back than
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 September 2016 at 08:28, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 12 September 2016 at 03:27, Michael Paquier
>>> wrote:
>>>
So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and HEAD.
>>>
>>> The $
On 12 September 2016 at 08:28, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 12 September 2016 at 03:27, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and HEAD.
>>
>> The $OP commit was against HEAD only, not against 9.6
>>
>> Why would
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 September 2016 at 03:27, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>
>> So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and HEAD.
>
> The $OP commit was against HEAD only, not against 9.6
>
> Why would we need to backpatch this commit?
You are right there is no nee
On 12 September 2016 at 03:27, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and HEAD.
The $OP commit was against HEAD only, not against 9.6
Why would we need to backpatch this commit?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Suppor
On 12 September 2016 at 03:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> On reflection, maybe s/walsender/WAL sender/? It doesn't look like
> we really use the word "walsender" in user-facing docs.
There are already
* 3 user messages referring to walsender and 2 referring to walreceiver
* multiple references in the do
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> Indeed, and the query field does not have much more meaning for a WAL
>> sender. So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and HEAD. I have thought
>> about reporting that to pgstat in StartReplication(), but as there is
>>
Michael Paquier writes:
> Indeed, and the query field does not have much more meaning for a WAL
> sender. So I'd propose the attached for 9.6 and HEAD. I have thought
> about reporting that to pgstat in StartReplication(), but as there is
> some error handling there I'd think that WalSndLoop() is
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> The fact that the pg_stat_replication view does show walsender processes
>> >> seems like possibly a reasonable a
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The fact that the pg_stat_replication view does show walsender processes
> >> seems like possibly a reasonable argument for not showing them in
> >> pg_stat_activity. But we
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The fact that the pg_stat_replication view does show walsender processes
>> seems like possibly a reasonable argument for not showing them in
>> pg_stat_activity. But we'd have to do some rejiggering of the view
>> def
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The fact that the pg_stat_replication view does show walsender processes
> seems like possibly a reasonable argument for not showing them in
> pg_stat_activity. But we'd have to do some rejiggering of the view
> definition to make that happen.
W
I wrote:
> I looked into this a little. There are at least three things we could
> do here:
> 1. Decide that showing walsenders is a good thing. I'm not really
> sure why it isn't -- for example, we could take the trouble to display
> the current replication command as the walsender's activity.
>
I wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
>> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn't exist.
>> This change causes pg_stat_activity to report the "bogus" information about
>> walsenders as follows.
> Hmm ... but if we want to e
Fujii Masao writes:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn't exist.
> This change causes pg_stat_activity to report the "bogus" information about
> walsenders as follows.
Hmm ... but if we want to exclude walsenders
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Use LEFT JOINs in some system views in case referenced row doesn't exist.
>
> In particular, left join to pg_authid so that rows in pg_stat_activity
> don't disappear if the session's owning user has been dropped.
> Also convert a few joins to pg_
17 matches
Mail list logo
