On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:37 PM John Naylor <jcnay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/13/18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Don't you need to remove <literal>background worker</literal>? > > It's handled in pgstat_get_backend_desc(), so I assumed not. If that's > just a place holder, then it's probably better left out, as in the > attached. >
I don't think 'background worker' can be displayed as backend_type. Do you see any way it can be displayed as backend_type? > > + In addition, extensions may have additional types. > > > > How about: "In addition, background workers registered by extensions > > may have additional types."? > > Sounds good to me -- I've included this language. > LGTM. I will wait for a day or so, if nobody has any comments, I will push your patch. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
