Re: backend type in log_line_prefix?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: backend type in log_line_prefix? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200401015548.GK17676@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: backend type in log_line_prefix? (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: backend type in log_line_prefix?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:30:07PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > Hello. > > At Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:38:53 -0400, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote in > > Patch applied to master, thanks. > > The patch (8e8a0becb3) named archiver process as just "archiver". On > the other hand the discussion in the thread [1] was going to name the > process as "WAL/wal archiver". As all other processes related to WAL > are named as walreceiver, walsender, walwriter, wouldn't we name the > process like "wal archiver"? > > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200319195410.icib45bbgjwqb5zn@alap3.anarazel.de Agreed. I ended up moving "wal" as a separate word, since it looks cleaner; patch attached. Tools that look for the backend type in pg_stat_activity would need to be adjusted; it would be an incompatibility. Maybe changing it would cause too much disruption. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: