Re: application_name in process name? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: application_name in process name?
Date
Msg-id 26623.1468769658@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: application_name in process name?  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Responses Re: application_name in process name?  (Mike Blackwell <mike.blackwell@rrd.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> writes:
> On 7/13/16 12:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In a lot of situations ("top" for instance) only a limited number of
>> characters can be displayed from a process title.  I'm hesitant to add
>> fields to that string that we don't really need.

> Could we make this configurable, similar to log_line_prefix?

Yeah, we could get rid of a lot of the need for value judgments in this
area if we bit the bullet and provided infrastructure like that.

It occurs to me that we could also remove the update_process_title GUC:
what you would do is configure a process_title pattern that doesn't
include the %-escape for current command tag, and the infrastructure
could notice that that escape isn't present and skip unnecessary updates.
The same kind of trick could be used for other potentially-expensive
items like the lock "waiting" flag.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: sslmode=require fallback
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: A Modest Upgrade Proposal