Re: [HACKERS] sync process names between ps and pg_stat_activity
От | MauMau |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] sync process names between ps and pg_stat_activity |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3FB780E5D4444A9D8896C46299A3E611@tunaPC обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] sync process names between ps and pg_stat_activity (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] sync process names between ps and pg_stat_activity
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: Peter Eisentraut > The process names shown in pg_stat_activity.backend_type as of PG10 and > the process names used in the ps display are in some cases gratuitously > different, so here is a patch to make them more alike. Of course it > could be debated in some cases which spelling was better. (1) In the following comment, it's better to change "wal sender process" to "walsender" to follow the modified name. - * postgres: wal sender process <user> <host> <activity> + * postgres: walsender <user> <host> <activity> * * To achieve that, we pass "wal sender process" as usernameand username * as dbname to init_ps_display(). XXX: should add a new variant of * init_ps_display() to avoid abusing the parameters like this. */ (2) "WAL writer process" is used, not "walwriter", is used in postmaster.c as follows. I guess this is for natural language. Is this intended? I'm OK with either, though. HandleChildCrash(pid, exitstatus, _("WAL writer process")); case WalWriterProcess: ereport(LOG, (errmsg("could not fork WAL writer process: %m"))); Personally, I prefer "wal writer", "wal sender" and "wal receiver" that separate words as other process names. But I don't mind leaving them as they are now. I'd like to make this as ready for committer when I get some reply. Regards MauMau -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: