Thread

1. Re: [patch] Add process title to test_shm_mq worker

   Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2026-02-02T17:38:51Z

   On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 06:31:56PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
   > albeit just a test module, the test_shm_mq test can run a few seconds,
   > and during that, it looks like this:
   > 
   > mbanck     2701  - Rsfo  0:00.51 postgres:
   > 
   > With the attached patch, it looks like this:
   > 
   > mbanck     2780  - Rsfo  0:01.63 postgres: test_shm_mq worker
   > 
   > I think the process title got lost in 5373bc2a where bgw_name was
   > replaced with bgw_type. Maybe that was intentional, but the
   > corresponding change to src/test/modules/worker_spi was made so that
   > bgw_name was preserved/changed.
   
   Seems reasonable to me.  While it's only a test module, folks might use it
   as a starting point for their own module, so IMHO it's worth setting a good
   example.  I'll wait for a couple, but otherwise I'll go commit this soon.
   
   -- 
   nathan
   
   
   
   

2. Re: [patch] Add process title to test_shm_mq worker

   Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> — 2026-02-02T21:46:35Z

   On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 11:38:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
   > Seems reasonable to me.  While it's only a test module, folks might use it
   > as a starting point for their own module, so IMHO it's worth setting a good
   > example.  I'll wait for a couple, but otherwise I'll go commit this soon.
   
   Committed.  I ended up moving the new line to the background worker
   registration loop so that we can add the worker number to the name, too.
   
   -- 
   nathan
   
   
   
   

3. Re: [patch] Add process title to test_shm_mq worker

   Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> — 2026-02-02T22:03:35Z

   Hi,
   
   On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 03:46:35PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
   > On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 11:38:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
   > > Seems reasonable to me.  While it's only a test module, folks might use it
   > > as a starting point for their own module, so IMHO it's worth setting a good
   > > example.  I'll wait for a couple, but otherwise I'll go commit this soon.
   > 
   > Committed. 
   
   Thanks!
   
   > I ended up moving the new line to the background worker registration
   > loop so that we can add the worker number to the name, too.
   
   Oh right, I missed that one.
   
   
   Michael