Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmobz8yTDbXMmefKAAUkJ+WpFWQPMy9+GFipbn-NAZuqjtQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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?

I think if I were doing something about it, I'd probably try to filter
on a field that directly represents whether there is a connection,
rather than checking the backend type. That way, if the list of
backend types that have client connections changes later, there's
nothing to update. Like "WHERE client_port IS NOT NULL," or something
of that sort.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: v12 and pg_restore -f-