Re: Client application name

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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