Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Application name patch - v4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Date: 2009-12-01 21:20:12
Message-ID: 16595.1259702412@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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,
> standard_conforming_strings)

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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2009-12-01 21:21:51
Subject: Re: SE-PgSQL patch review
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2009-12-01 21:08:06
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group