Re: bgw_type (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcherset application_name?)

On 8/31/17 23:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> One open question is how to treat a missing (empty) bgw_type.  I
>> currently fill in bgw_name as a fallback.  We could also treat it as an
>> error or a warning as a transition measure.
> 
> Hm. Why not reporting an empty type string as NULL at SQL level and
> just let it empty them? I tend to like more interfaces that report
> exactly what is exactly registered at memory-level, because that's
> easier to explain to users and in the documentation, as well as easier
> to interpret and easier for module developers.

But then background workers that are not updated for, say, PG11 will not
show anything useful in pg_stat_activity.  We should have some amount of
backward compatibility here.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers