| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 21:20:12 |
| Message-ID: | 16595.1259702412@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-12-01 21:21:51 | Re: SE-PgSQL patch review |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2009-12-01 21:08:06 | Re: Application name patch - v4 |