On 12/3/20, 1:58 PM, "Justin Pryzby" <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:18:07PM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> I considered also checking that update_process_title was enabled, but
>> I figured that these ps display updates should happen sparsely enough
>> that it wouldn't make much of an impact.
>
> Since bf68b79e5, update_ps_display is responsible for checking
> update_process_title. Its other, remaining uses are apparently just acting as
> minor optimizations to guard against useless snprintf's.
>
> See also https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1288021.1600178478%40sss.pgh.pa.us
> in which (I just saw) Tom wrote:
>
>> Seems like a good argument, but you'd have to be careful about the
>> final state when you stop overriding update_process_title --- it can't
>> be left looking like it's still-in-progress on some random WAL file.
>
> I think that's a live problem, not just a concern for that patch.
> It was exactly my complaint leading to this thread:
>
>> But runs a checkpoint, which can take a long time, while the "ps" display still
>> says "recovering NNNNNNNN".
Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing this out.
Nathan