From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Client application name |
Date: | 2009-10-14 07:27:43 |
Message-ID: | 937d27e10910140027t3206118ch1d6273b92df19406@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>>> besides, as Robert mention, because of pooler connections using a GUC
>>> is more appropiate...
>
>> I'd like both options to be available to the programmer.
>
> We have several things already that can be fed either from an
> environment variable or an option in the connection string.
> Is there any compelling reason why those two mechanisms aren't
> adequate for this?
Err, yes - see above. And didn't you also say it was essential to be
able to change it after the initial connection (for which the GUC
seems like the obvious solution)?
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-10-14 08:44:22 | Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review) |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-10-14 05:34:32 | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls |