Re: [PATCH] Include application_name in "connection authorized" log message

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Don Seiler <don(at)seiler(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Include application_name in "connection authorized" log message
Date: 2018-08-07 16:29:15
Message-ID: 25838.1533659355@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> But having said that, I don't exactly see why you couldn't force it
>> with an ultimately-redundant SetConfigOption call to put the value
>> in place before the ereport happens. The GUC machinery is surely
>> functional before we do authorization.

> If that's the approach you think makes the most sense, I wouldn't object
> to it. I will point out that we'd end up with the application name in
> the log line if it's also included in log_line_prefix, but that's what
> happens with "user" anyway, isn't it?, so that doesn't seem to be a big
> deal. I do think it's still good to have appplication_name explicitly
> in the log message for users who want to just log application_name on
> connection and not have it on every single log line.

Well, if you're going to insist on that part, it's probably not worth
making the application_name GUC have inconsistent behavior.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rushabh Lathia 2018-08-07 16:51:52 Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2018-08-07 16:21:57 Re: [HACKERS] WIP Patch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors