| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: application_name in process name? |
| Date: | 2016-07-16 23:15:12 |
| Message-ID: | e5e288ae-5584-f35a-3e49-97d630192d5f@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/13/16 12:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com> writes:
>> There are times when it would be useful to have the application_name
>> connection parameter displayed in the process name - and thus in ps and
>> pg_top - in addition to the user and database name.
>
>> Would there be any downside to this?
>
> In a lot of situations ("top" for instance) only a limited number of
> characters can be displayed from a process title. I'm hesitant to add
> fields to that string that we don't really need.
Could we make this configurable, similar to log_line_prefix?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-07-17 07:21:21 | Re: One process per session lack of sharing |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-07-16 23:04:52 | Re: Constraint merge and not valid status |