Re: Application name patch - v4

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I don't think that we need to bump the protocol version. The real
>> alternative here would be that libpq sends a startup packet that
>> includes application_name, and if it gets an error back from that,
>> it starts over without the app name.

> I looked (briefly) at doing that when we first ran into this
> suggestion. As you pointed out at the time, it seemed like that would
> require some fairly ugly hackery in fe-connect.c

Perhaps, but at the time it wasn't apparent that issuing a separate SET
would create user-visible behavioral inconsistencies.  Now that we've
realized that, I think we should reconsider.

If people are agreed that double connect is a better alternative
I'm willing to go look at how to make it happen.

			regards, tom lane