Re: application_name in process name?

Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/13/16 12:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In a lot of situations ("top" for instance) only a limited number of
>> characters can be displayed from a process title. I'm hesitant to add
>> fields to that string that we don't really need.

> Could we make this configurable, similar to log_line_prefix?

Yeah, we could get rid of a lot of the need for value judgments in this
area if we bit the bullet and provided infrastructure like that.

It occurs to me that we could also remove the update_process_title GUC:
what you would do is configure a process_title pattern that doesn't
include the %-escape for current command tag, and the infrastructure
could notice that that escape isn't present and skip unnecessary updates.
The same kind of trick could be used for other potentially-expensive
items like the lock "waiting" flag.

regards, tom lane