Re: Client application name

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Client application name
Date: 2009-10-13 21:25:24
Message-ID: 19881.1255469124@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Jaime Casanova
> <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>> besides, as Robert mention, because of pooler connections using a GUC
>> is more appropiate...

> I'd like both options to be available to the programmer.

We have several things already that can be fed either from an
environment variable or an option in the connection string.
Is there any compelling reason why those two mechanisms aren't
adequate for this?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2009-10-13 21:44:38 Re: Re: [GENERAL] contrib/plantuner - enable PostgreSQL planner hints
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-10-13 21:08:20 Re: Unicode UTF-8 table formatting for psql text output