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

From Kuntal Ghosh
Subject Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl
Date
Msg-id CAGz5QCJ=5nQP7aYXOeYkjXTi2BX2u0_kmrcuPQtRAMG9oBWjPw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl  (Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:09 PM Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > 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.)
> >
> Yep, it is pointless. BackendType that open connections to server are:
> autovacuum worker, client backend, background worker, wal sender. I
> also notice that pg_stat_gssapi is in the same boat as pg_stat_ssl and
> we should constraint the rows to backend types that open connections.
> I'm attaching a patch to list only connections in those system views.
>
Yeah, We should hide those. As Robert mentioned, I think checking
whether 'client_port IS NOT NULL' is a better approach than checking
the backend_type. The patch looks good to me.



-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Keep compiler silence (clang 10, implicit conversion from'long' to 'double' )
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: v12.0: ERROR: could not find pathkey item to sort