On 2018-Jun-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-06-22 15:26:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2018-Jun-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-06-22 12:16:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > > > OK, that makes more sense, but I'm still skeptical of adding a special
> > > > case particularly for application_name.
> > >
> > > I think a fair argument could be made that you'd want to have
> > > application_name logged exactly once, not in every line. Just to cope
> > > with log volume. With decent log analysis tools once is enough.
> >
> > Seems harder than it sounds ... because if the user turns off
> > log_connections then it's not longer in the log.
>
> That's superuser only, so I really don't quite buy that argument.
I meant if the DBA disables it in postgresql.conf then the info is
nowhere.
> > One idea would be to have a log line designed specifically to be
> > printed once at connection start (if not log_connections) and then
> > once immediately after it changes. Am I the only one for whom this
> > sounds like overengineering?
>
> Yea. I think on balance, I don't buy that it's worth the cost. But I
> don't think it's a clear cut "you don't need this".
Yeah, that's true, particularly for the case of the connection pooler ...
(I'm anxious to see where the Odyssey thing goes, because pgbouncer at
this point doesn't seem to be cutting it anymore. If odyssey takes off,
we could start listening more from them on what they need.)
For the time being, I think adding it to the log_connections line is a
good change, so +1.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
