Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name?
Date: 2017-04-18 16:37:35
Message-ID: 12850.1492533455@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I think showing bgw_name as backend_type always sounds reasonable. No
> need to treat external implementations differently.

That's definitely an approach we could use. It would encourage people
to use short bgw_names, which is a constraint that wasn't especially
apparent before, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2017-04-18 16:40:56 Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2017-04-18 16:35:52 Re: some review comments on logical rep code