Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If you're happy with handling the existing connection parameters in a given
>> way, why would you not want application_name behaving that same way?
> Well, in pgbouncer case, the parameters tracked via ParamStatus are
> handled transparently. (client_encoding, datestyle, timezone,
Hmm, I had not thought about that. Is it sensible to mark
application_name as GUC_REPORT so that pgbouncer can be smart about it?
The actual overhead of such a thing would be probably be unmeasurable in
the normal case where it's only set via the startup packet, but it seems
a bit odd.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2009-12-01 21:21:51|
|Subject: Re: SE-PgSQL patch review|
|Previous:||From: Marko Kreen||Date: 2009-12-01 21:08:06|
|Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4|