On 8/31/17 23:22, Michael Paquier wrote: >> One open question is how to treat a missing (empty) bgw_type. I >> currently fill in bgw_name as a fallback. We could also treat it as an >> error or a warning as a transition measure. > > Hm. Why not reporting an empty type string as NULL at SQL level and > just let it empty them? I tend to like more interfaces that report > exactly what is exactly registered at memory-level, because that's > easier to explain to users and in the documentation, as well as easier > to interpret and easier for module developers.
But then background workers that are not updated for, say, PG11 will not show anything useful in pg_stat_activity. We should have some amount of backward compatibility here. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
