From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:25:59 -0300
Message-ID: <20191104132559.GA18441@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190904151535.GA29108@alvherre.pgsql>
On 2019-Sep-04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I just noticed that we list auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl:
[...]
> But this seems pointless. Should we not hide those? Seems this only
> happened as an unintended side-effect of fc70a4b0df38. It appears to me
> that we should redefine that view to restrict backend_type that's
> 'client backend' (maybe include 'wal receiver'/'wal sender' also, not
> sure.)
[crickets]
Robert, Kuntal, any opinion on this?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, robertmhaas@gmail.com, kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com
Subject: Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
In-Reply-To: <20191104132559.GA18441@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox