Re: [HACKERS] exposing wait events for non-backends (was: Trackingwait event for latches)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I do have extended localBackendStatusTable with slots for non-backend
>> processes. But, I've renamed it as localProcStatusTable since it
>> includes all processes. I'll keep the variable name as
>> localBackendStatusTable in the updated patch to avoid any confusion.
>> I've extended BackendStatusArray to store auxiliary processes.
>> Backends use slots indexed in the range from 1 to MaxBackends
>> (inclusive), so we use MaxBackends + AuxProcType + 1 as the index of
>> the slot for an auxiliary process.
>
> I think the subject of this the thread, for which I'm probably to
> blame, is bad terminology.  The processes we're talking about exposing
> in pg_stat_activity here are really backends, too, I think.  They're
> just ... special backends.  So I would tend to avoid any backend ->
> process type of renaming.

FWIW, my impression on the matter matches what is written in this paragraph.
-- 
Michael