Re: Client application name

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Client application name
Date: 2009-10-21 16:27:43
Message-ID: 29394.1256142463@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> BTW, any thoughts on Heikki's suggestions of hacking about the
> 'options' value or retrying the connection vs. just doing a SET
> post-connection in libpq? It's pretty certain that whatever I choose
> you probably won't like :-p

The post-connect SET still seems like the best choice to me.
It's mildly annoying that that won't help for log_connections
messages, but in the big scheme of things that's really not a
killer problem.

The retry approach is not too bad from a user perspective: it would
only actually happen during a server version mismatch, which isn't
*that* common. My recollection though is that there's no graceful way
to implement a retry in libpq; you'd need a significant amount of new,
ugly, special-purpose code, with the complexity rising very fast if
there's more than one reason to retry. If you can figure out a clean
implementation this one would be okay with me, but I'm dubious that
it's worth the work.

That options hack was just an ugly hack, I don't like it at all ---
mainly because I don't believe that approach scales to solve more
than one case either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-10-21 16:28:29 Re: URL Managment - C Function help
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2009-10-21 16:24:20 Re: Could regexp_matches be immutable?