Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwCybqwq-z5oWV=XMuT1FabpBJrc7g3rrffZPF9=KG2TQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off
Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
-- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Yeah, I think I agree. It would be bad to disable it by default on Unix,
> because ps(1) is a very standard tool there, but the same argument doesn't
> hold for Windows.
It seems that we could reach a consensus. The patch is attached. I'll add this to the next CommitFest.
> Another route to a solution would be to find a cheaper way to update the
> process title on Windows ... has anyone looked for alternatives?
I couldn't find an alternative solution after asking some Windows support staff.
FWIW, I remember this from back in the days when this was written. We kind of expected this would be slow already back then, but couldn't find a better way at the time either. And back then, I guess there were just enough *other* things that were slow with pg-on-windows that it didn't become as obvious.
So - +1 for changing the defaults as suggested.
What's our take on backpatching such changes? Should this be 9.6 only, or back further?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: