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
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 |