Re: [PATCH] Include application_name in "connection authorized" log message

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >> But having said that, I don't exactly see why you couldn't force it
> >> with an ultimately-redundant SetConfigOption call to put the value
> >> in place before the ereport happens. The GUC machinery is surely
> >> functional before we do authorization.
>
> > If that's the approach you think makes the most sense, I wouldn't object
> > to it. I will point out that we'd end up with the application name in
> > the log line if it's also included in log_line_prefix, but that's what
> > happens with "user" anyway, isn't it?, so that doesn't seem to be a big
> > deal. I do think it's still good to have appplication_name explicitly
> > in the log message for users who want to just log application_name on
> > connection and not have it on every single log line.
>
> Well, if you're going to insist on that part, it's probably not worth
> making the application_name GUC have inconsistent behavior.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

OK so just to make sure I understand:

1. We want to make a generic, central ascii-lobotomizing function similar
to check_application_name that we can re-use there and for other checks (eg
user name).
2. Change check_application_name to call this function (or just call this
function instead of check_application_name()?)
3. Call this function when storing the value in the port struct.

Please let me know if I'm missing/misunderstanding anything.

Don.

--
Don Seiler
www.seiler.us