Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

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?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services