Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Application name patch - v3

From: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v3
Date: 2009-12-28 21:33:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Le 28/12/2009 17:06, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> writes:
>> Le 28/12/2009 10:07, Dave Page a écrit :
>>> Yes, still waiting on the new API.
>> Is there something I can do to make this move forward?
> I think we were stalled on the question of whether to use one array
> or two parallel arrays.  Do you want to try coding up a sample usage
> of each possibility so we can see which one seems more useful?

I'm interested in working on this. But I don't find the thread that talk
about this. I feel pretty dumb, but I re-read every mail on "Application
name patch - v2", "Application name patch - v3", and "Application name
patch - v4" threads. I also re-read the "Client application name"
thread. The only mail I see that relates to the new API is the one from
Dave (the one I answered today).

So, can someone point me to the thread that deals with this "new
array-based libpq connect API"? or can someone explain it to me?



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2009-12-28 21:39:06
Subject: Re: Admission Control Policy
Previous:From: mattDate: 2009-12-28 21:30:44
Subject: parse tree to XML format

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group