Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:50:08 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
Message-ID: <20191112215008.GA607@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20191104160605.GC6962@tamriel.snowman.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Nov-04, Stephen Frost wrote:

> Based on what we claim in our docs, it does look like 'client_port IS
> NOT NULL' should work.  I do think we might want to update the docs to
> make it a bit more explicit, what we say now is:
> 
> TCP port number that the client is using for communication with this
> backend, or -1 if a Unix socket is used
> 
> We don't explain there that NULL means the backend doesn't have an
> external connection even though plenty of those entries show up in every
> instance of PG.  Perhaps we should add this:
> 
> If this field is null, it indicates that this is an internal process
> such as autovacuum.
> 
> Which is what we say for 'client_addr'.

Seems sensible.  Done.  Thanks

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services