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

Re: Application name patch - v4

From: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 21:30:53
Message-ID: e51f66da0912011330i216ae892g472270a526e8a73d@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

IMHO it is sensible, if we really want the option to follow client.

-- 
marko

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-12-01 21:46:11
Subject: Re: A thought about regex versus multibyte character sets
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-01 21:30:03
Subject: Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4?

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