On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:53 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:37 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:34 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the comments, the attached v12 patch has the changes for the same.
> >
> > I have reviewed this patch and have some comments on v12-0001,
> >
> > 1.
> > + This feature is not supported for the postmaster, logger, checkpointer,
> > + walwriter, background writer or statistics collector process. This
> >
> >
> > Comment says it is not supported for postmaster, logger, checkpointer
> > etc, but I just tried and it is working for checkpointer and walwriter
> > processes, can you explain in comments why do we not want to support
> > for these processes? or the comment is old and now we are supporting
> > for some of these processes.
>
> Please see the v12-0002 which will have the description modified.
Okay, now I see that.
> > 2.
> > postgres[64154]=# select pg_print_backtrace(64136);
> > WARNING: 01000: PID 64136 is not a PostgreSQL server process
> > LOCATION: pg_print_backtrace, signalfuncs.c:335
> > pg_print_backtrace
> > --------------------
> > f
> >
> >
> > For postmaster I am getting this WARNING "PID 64136 is not a
> > PostgreSQL server process", even if we don't want to support this
> > process I don't think this message is good.
>
> This is a generic message that is coming from pg_signal_backend, not
> related to Vignesh's patch. I agree with you that emitting a "not
> postgres server process" for the postmaster process which is the main
> "postgres process" doesn't sound sensible. Please see there's already
> a thread [1] and see the v1 patch [2] for changing this message.
> Please let me know if you want me to revive that stalled thread?
>[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACW7Rr-R7mBcBQiXWPp%3DJV5chajjTdudLiF5YcpW-BmHhg%40mail.gmail.com
>[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACUGxedgYk-5nO8D2EJV2YHXnoycp_oqYAxDXTODhWkmkg%40mail.gmail.com
Hmm, yeah I think I like the idea posted in [1], however, I could not
open the link [2]
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
