Re: [HACKERS] sync process names between ps and pg_stat_activity

On 9/18/17 02:07, MauMau wrote:
> (1)
> In the following comment, it's better to change "wal sender process"
> to "walsender" to follow the modified name.
> 
> -     * postgres: wal sender process <user> <host> <activity>
> +     * postgres: walsender <user> <host> <activity>
>       *
>       * To achieve that, we pass "wal sender process" as username and
> username

good catch

> (2)
> "WAL writer process" is used, not "walwriter", is used in postmaster.c
> as follows.  I guess this is for natural language.  Is this intended?
> I'm OK with either, though.
> 
>                 HandleChildCrash(pid, exitstatus,
>                                  _("WAL writer process"));

Yes, we usually use that spelling in user-facing messages.

> Personally, I prefer "wal writer", "wal sender" and "wal receiver"
> that separate words as other process names.  But I don't mind leaving
> them as they are now.

If we were to change those, that would break existing queries for
pg_stat_activity.  That's new in PG10, so we could change it if we were
really eager.  But it's probably not worth bothering.  Then again, there
is pg_stat_wal_receiver.  So it's all totally inconsistent.  Not sure
where to go.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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