| From: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JDBC gripe list |
| Date: | 2011-03-31 10:06:04 |
| Message-ID: | in1jm9$sqa$1@dough.gmane.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Achilleas Mantzios, 31.03.2011 09:58:
>> If you are on 9.0 and have control over the connection
>> initialization in the pool, then using 9.0's "application_name"
>> might be a solution to this.
>>
>> If you can configure the pool to run
>>
>> SET application_name = 'app_user_name'
>>
>> when a connection is taken out of the pool, then this name can be
>> part of the log message in the PostgreSQL logfile.
>>
>
> Yes, sure, thanx for sharing this. One could indeed do this by
> hacking/subclassing the relevant pool classes in the app server. But
> that would still be a work around. I dont know why SET application
> ='' is reflected in the log files, but SET ROLE is not. Is it
> intentional ? Anyways this question should be targeted to the backend
> guys rather than here.
The actual SET application_name is not logged directly, but you can change the log configuration to include the name that is set with that statement.
Regards
Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Achilleas Mantzios | 2011-03-31 10:21:51 | Re: JDBC gripe list |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2011-03-31 08:13:27 | Re: JDBC gripe list |