On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:37 PM John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Don't you need to remove <literal>background worker</literal>?
>
> It's handled in pgstat_get_backend_desc(), so I assumed not. If that's
> just a place holder, then it's probably better left out, as in the
> attached.
>
I don't think 'background worker' can be displayed as backend_type.
Do you see any way it can be displayed as backend_type?
> > + In addition, extensions may have additional types.
> >
> > How about: "In addition, background workers registered by extensions
> > may have additional types."?
>
> Sounds good to me -- I've included this language.
>
LGTM. I will wait for a day or so, if nobody has any comments, I will
push your patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com