Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Fix the omission in docs.

  2. Add background worker type

  3. Show more processes in pg_stat_activity.

  1. doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> — 2018-11-12T07:50:30Z

    Hi all,

Commit fc70a4b0df3 added backend_type to pg_stat_activity, but the
documentation omitted "logical replication launcher". Patch attached.

-John Naylor

  2. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2018-11-12T12:20:58Z

    On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:20 PM John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Commit fc70a4b0df3 added backend_type to pg_stat_activity, but the
> documentation omitted "logical replication launcher". Patch attached.
>

Isn't this the fallout of commit 5373bc2a08 which has added background
worker types?  If so, I guess your patch needs modification.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  3. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> — 2018-11-12T14:42:45Z

    On 11/12/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:20 PM John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Commit fc70a4b0df3 added backend_type to pg_stat_activity, but the
>> documentation omitted "logical replication launcher". Patch attached.
>>
>
> Isn't this the fallout of commit 5373bc2a08 which has added background
> worker types?  If so, I guess your patch needs modification.

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.

-John Naylor

  4. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2018-11-13T00:08:20Z

    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.
--
Michael

  5. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2018-11-13T04:05:30Z

    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.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  6. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> — 2018-11-13T06:34:52Z

    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

  7. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2018-11-13T09:36:44Z

    On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

Don't you need to remove <literal>background worker</literal>?

+      In addition, extensions may have additional types.

How about: "In addition, background workers registered by extensions
may have additional types."?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  8. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> — 2018-11-13T10:07:24Z

    On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> 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.

> +      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.

-John Naylor

  9. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2018-11-13T11:33:04Z

    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

  10. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> — 2018-11-13T12:56:37Z

    On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think you're right (pgstatfuncs.c, starting at line 826).

-John Naylor

  11. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2018-11-15T05:49:27Z

    On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 5:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:37 PM John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +      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.
>

Pushed, thanks for working on this.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

  12. Re: doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type

    John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> — 2018-11-15T12:13:51Z

    On 11/15/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pushed, thanks for working on this.

Thanks for your input.

-John Naylor