From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, "Eric B(dot) Ridge" <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Client application name |
Date: | 2009-10-21 10:49:36 |
Message-ID: | 9837222c0910210349uae00119jcda45316d88e331e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:45, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 11:20 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> > The SET seems sufficient for me. All interfaces currently support it.
>>
>> SET alone will not allow what I see as one of the most useful uses of
>> this - consider:
>>
>> PGAPPLICATIONNAME="Nightly backup" pg_dump mydb
>> PGAPPLICATIONNAME="Sensor data import" psql < data.log
>
> This highlights a different issue. If you wish to pass arbitrary SET
> parameter(s) to a client then it is difficult to do so. We would be
> better off solving that generic problem than solving your specific one.
>
> Consider
>
> PGDEADLOCKTIMEOUT=1 pg_dump mydb
> PGWORKMEM=32657 psql < data.log
>
> Same requirement as setting the appname. Specific code for each
> parameter is the wrong way to do that.
PGOPTIONS is the way to do that, no? It can be a bit tricky when you
have to deal with quoting, but it is there and it works...
>> Also, adding something to libpq means we have to alter all the clients
>> > and that means they become incompatible with earlier versions. What
>> > advantage comes from doing all of that work? Nothing even close to large
>> > enough to warrant the pain and delay, AFAICS.
>>
>> I must be missing something - why do we have to alter the clients? As
>> it stands, they can use SET with whatever libpq they currently have,
>> however if they wish to use the environment or connection string
>> they'll need to update to the new libpq version. Those apps that don't
>> care won't be affected because the libpq API hasn't changed in any way
>> that isn't fully backwards compatible.
>
> If they can use SET, why are we changing libpq? If we are changing
> libpq, why would we ignore those changes in the clients? (We don't need
> to change clients, but most clients expose some language specific
> feature to set things rather than just ignore them and let them be set
> via libpq).
The idea is to provide a better default than an empty string, I think.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-10-21 11:01:10 | Re: Client application name |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-10-21 10:47:39 | Re: Client application name |