On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:30:07PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Hello.
>
> At Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:38:53 -0400, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote in
> > Patch applied to master, thanks.
>
> The patch (8e8a0becb3) named archiver process as just "archiver". On
> the other hand the discussion in the thread [1] was going to name the
> process as "WAL/wal archiver". As all other processes related to WAL
> are named as walreceiver, walsender, walwriter, wouldn't we name the
> process like "wal archiver"?
>
> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200319195410.icib45bbgjwqb5zn@alap3.anarazel.de
Agreed. I ended up moving "wal" as a separate word, since it looks
cleaner; patch attached. Tools that look for the backend type in
pg_stat_activity would need to be adjusted; it would be an
incompatibility. Maybe changing it would cause too much disruption.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
