Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type
От | John Naylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJVSVGUjXCZ_sEGrwG7ZWCg321Ln75Fr7xcf=OuoBuuDmL7pcw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:38 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:42:45PM +0700, John Naylor wrote: >> > Looks like it. A quick search revealed "parallel worker" and "logical >> > replication worker". src/test/modules/ also show "test_shm_mq" and >> > "worker_spi", but it seems those don't need to be publicly documented. >> > If that sounds right I'll update the patch to include the first two. >> >> Just wondering: do we actually need to include in the docs this list at >> all? This is a recipe to forget its update each time a new backend type >> is added. >> > > Sure, but how will we justify documenting (autovacuum launcher and > autovacuum worker) and not (logical replication launcher and logical > replication worker)? I think we can document the type of workers that > are part of core-server functionality. We can make some generic > statement on the workers that can be launched by extensions. How about something like the attached? -John Naylor
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: