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
