Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmobz8yTDbXMmefKAAUkJ+WpFWQPMy9+GFipbn-NAZuqjtQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2019-Sep-04, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I just noticed that we list auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl: > [...] > > But this seems pointless. Should we not hide those? Seems this only > > happened as an unintended side-effect of fc70a4b0df38. It appears to me > > that we should redefine that view to restrict backend_type that's > > 'client backend' (maybe include 'wal receiver'/'wal sender' also, not > > sure.) > > [crickets] > > Robert, Kuntal, any opinion on this? I think if I were doing something about it, I'd probably try to filter on a field that directly represents whether there is a connection, rather than checking the backend type. That way, if the list of backend types that have client connections changes later, there's nothing to update. Like "WHERE client_port IS NOT NULL," or something of that sort. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: