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 20:18:31
Message-ID: 6865.1259698711@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> No, at least both pgbouncer and pgpool consider only (username, database)
> pair as pool identifier.  Rest of the startup params are tuned on the fly.
> And I think that should stay that way.

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?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-01 20:32:07
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: Marko KreenDate: 2009-12-01 20:07:06
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4

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