Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

2019-11-12 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2019-Nov-04, Stephen Frost wrote: > Based on what we claim in our docs, it does look like 'client_port IS > NOT NULL' should work. I do think we might want to update the docs to > make it a bit more explicit, what we say now is: > > TCP port number that the client is using for communication w

Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

2019-11-12 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On 2019-Nov-04, Euler Taveira wrote: > 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 ty

Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

2019-11-04 Thread Kuntal Ghosh
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:09 PM Euler Taveira 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'

Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

2019-11-04 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:26 AM Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > On 2019-Sep-04, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > I just noticed that we list auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl: > > [...] > > > But this seems

Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

2019-11-04 Thread Euler Taveira
Em qua., 4 de set. de 2019 às 12:15, Alvaro Herrera escreveu: > > I just noticed that we list auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl: > > 55432 13devel 28627=# select * from pg_stat_ssl ; > pid │ ssl │ version │ cipher │ bits │ compression │ > client_dn │ client_

Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

2019-11-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:26 AM Alvaro Herrera 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 u

Re: auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

2019-11-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl

2019-09-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
I just noticed that we list auxiliary processes in pg_stat_ssl: 55432 13devel 28627=# select * from pg_stat_ssl ; pid │ ssl │ version │ cipher │ bits │ compression │ client_dn │ client_serial │ issuer_dn