Horton

Re: Application name patch - v4

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>
Date: 2009-12-01T21:20:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If you're happy with handling the existing connection parameters in a given
>> way, why would you not want application_name behaving that same way?

> Well, in pgbouncer case, the parameters tracked via ParamStatus are
> handled transparently.  (client_encoding, datestyle, timezone,
> standard_conforming_strings)

Hmm, I had not thought about that.  Is it sensible to mark
application_name as GUC_REPORT so that pgbouncer can be smart about it?
The actual overhead of such a thing would be probably be unmeasurable in
the normal case where it's only set via the startup packet, but it seems
a bit odd.

			regards, tom lane