Re: [patch] Add process title to test_shm_mq worker
On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 06:31:56PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
albeit just a test module, the test_shm_mq test can run a few seconds,
and during that, it looks like this:mbanck 2701 - Rsfo 0:00.51 postgres:
With the attached patch, it looks like this:
mbanck 2780 - Rsfo 0:01.63 postgres: test_shm_mq worker
I think the process title got lost in 5373bc2a where bgw_name was
replaced with bgw_type. Maybe that was intentional, but the
corresponding change to src/test/modules/worker_spi was made so that
bgw_name was preserved/changed.
Seems reasonable to me. While it's only a test module, folks might use it
as a starting point for their own module, so IMHO it's worth setting a good
example. I'll wait for a couple, but otherwise I'll go commit this soon.
--
nathan
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 6980df98.5d0a0220.25a748.a08cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.comReference msg id not found: 6980df98.5d0a0220.25a748.a08cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com
On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 11:38:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Seems reasonable to me. While it's only a test module, folks might use it
as a starting point for their own module, so IMHO it's worth setting a good
example. I'll wait for a couple, but otherwise I'll go commit this soon.
Committed. I ended up moving the new line to the background worker
registration loop so that we can add the worker number to the name, too.
--
nathan
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 03:46:35PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 11:38:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Seems reasonable to me. While it's only a test module, folks might use it
as a starting point for their own module, so IMHO it's worth setting a good
example. I'll wait for a couple, but otherwise I'll go commit this soon.Committed.
Thanks!
I ended up moving the new line to the background worker registration
loop so that we can add the worker number to the name, too.
Oh right, I missed that one.
Michael
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 03:46:35PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 11:38:51AM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
Seems reasonable to me. While it's only a test module, folks might use it
as a starting point for their own module, so IMHO it's worth setting a good
example. I'll wait for a couple, but otherwise I'll go commit this soon.Committed.
Thanks!
I ended up moving the new line to the background worker registration
loop so that we can add the worker number to the name, too.
Oh right, I missed that one.
Michael