Re: Application name patch - v4

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Date: 2009-11-29 20:03:24
Message-ID: FEC7C55F-74DB-4BFE-BAFA-BD8D3DAB5046@hi-media.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Le 29 nov. 2009 à 18:22, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> I think we should use GUC_NO_RESET_ALL.
>
> I agree with you, but it seems we have at least as many votes to not do
> that. Any other votes out there?

Driven by the pooler use case (pgbouncer, even), I'd say RESET ALL should reset also the application name. And the connection value is not tied any more to something sensible as soon as you have pooling in there...

Regards,
--
dim

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brendan Jurd 2009-11-29 21:38:52 Re: cvs chapters in our docs
Previous Message Boszormenyi Zoltan 2009-11-29 19:56:41 Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication