Re: Client application name

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Client application name
Date: 2009-10-13 15:20:18
Message-ID: 937d27e10910130820l8e77ba8j9934a937c68c7480@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Doing it with a GUC will not be nearly so useful as having it in the wire
> protocol, IMNSHO. Just one example: it wouldn't be present in connection
> records, because it wouldn't be set yet.

I quite like the flexibility of being able to set/show a GUC at any
time, but you raise a good point. I'll need to venture into previously
unknown territory (for me at least :-p) to figure out how best to do
that, and if possible keep the GUC...

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-10-13 15:27:25 Re: Client application name
Previous Message Dave Page 2009-10-13 15:13:09 Re: Client application name