| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name? |
| Date: | 2017-06-03 03:18:01 |
| Message-ID: | 8acb9fed-32c7-0913-204b-512db0efdfc2@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/2/17 16:44, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> However, I am not sure about the bgw_name_extra. I think I would have
> preferred keeping full bgw_name field which would be used where full
> name is needed and bgw_type where only the worker type is used. The
> concatenation just doesn't sit well with me, especially if it requires
> the bgw_name_extra to start with space.
I see your point. There are also some i18n considerations to think through.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-03 03:23:26 | Re: Why does logical replication launcher set application_name? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-03 03:11:27 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity |