Re: Client application name

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Client application name
Date: 2009-10-21 15:39:20
Message-ID: 937d27e10910210839r4ff4b123p95ef8dc7a3c78daf@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> Should we perhaps change the behaviour of the backend to give a
>> warning only for unknown settings in the startup packet?
>
> It's not going to help, unless you first invent a time machine so
> we can retroactively cause all PG servers that are already in the field
> to behave that way.
>
>> It doesn't
>> seem beyond the realms of possibility that we might want to add
>> something else in the future, and this will at least mean that in a
>> few releases time it might be reasonably safe to do so.
>
> This might be a good argument for changing that going forward, but
> it will be *years* before we can rely on it for anything.

That's what I meant by 'a few releases' (major, not minor).

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2009-10-21 15:42:12 Re: Application name patch - v2
Previous Message Samuel ROZE 2009-10-21 15:31:45 URL Managment - C Function help