| From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Application name patch - v4 |
| Date: | 2009-12-01 21:30:53 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da0912011330i216ae892g472270a526e8a73d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> >> If you're happy with handling the existing connection parameters in a given
> >> way, why would you not want application_name behaving that same way?
>
> > Well, in pgbouncer case, the parameters tracked via ParamStatus are
> > handled transparently. (client_encoding, datestyle, timezone,
> > standard_conforming_strings)
>
>
> Hmm, I had not thought about that. Is it sensible to mark
> application_name as GUC_REPORT so that pgbouncer can be smart about it?
> The actual overhead of such a thing would be probably be unmeasurable in
> the normal case where it's only set via the startup packet, but it seems
> a bit odd.
IMHO it is sensible, if we really want the option to follow client.
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-01 21:46:11 | Re: A thought about regex versus multibyte character sets |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-01 21:30:03 | Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4? |