Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type
John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com>
From: John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-11-13T06:34:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- pg_stat_activity-fix-v2.patch (text/x-patch) patch v2
On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:38 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 09:42:45PM +0700, John Naylor wrote: >> > Looks like it. A quick search revealed "parallel worker" and "logical >> > replication worker". src/test/modules/ also show "test_shm_mq" and >> > "worker_spi", but it seems those don't need to be publicly documented. >> > If that sounds right I'll update the patch to include the first two. >> >> Just wondering: do we actually need to include in the docs this list at >> all? This is a recipe to forget its update each time a new backend type >> is added. >> > > Sure, but how will we justify documenting (autovacuum launcher and > autovacuum worker) and not (logical replication launcher and logical > replication worker)? I think we can document the type of workers that > are part of core-server functionality. We can make some generic > statement on the workers that can be launched by extensions. How about something like the attached? -John Naylor
Commits
-
Fix the omission in docs.
- e8ba27a4ce7f 11.2 landed
- 621a8ac5af8c 12.0 landed
-
Add background worker type
- 5373bc2a0867 11.0 cited
-
Show more processes in pg_stat_activity.
- fc70a4b0df38 10.0 cited