Sorry for missing this.
At Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:26:39 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in
>
> On 2022/01/27 17:10, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > I don't object to adding more meaningful replacements, but more escape
> > sequence makes me anxious about the increased easiness of exceeding
> > the size limit of application_name.
>
> If this is really an issue, it might be time to reconsider the size
> limit of application_name. If it's considered too short, the patch
> that enlarges it should be proposed separately.
That makes sense.
> > Considering that it is used to
> > identify fdw-initinator server, we might need to add padding (or
> > rather truncating) option in the escape sequence syntax, then warn
> > about truncated application_names for safety.
>
> I failed to understand this. Could you tell me why we might need to
> add padding option here?
My point was "truncating" option, which limits the length of the
replacement string. But expanding the application_name limit is more
sensible.
> > Is the reason for 'C' in upper-case to avoid possible conflict with
> > 'c' of log_line_prefix?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I'm not sure that preventive measure is worth
> > doing. Looking the escape-sequence spec alone, it seems to me rather
> > strange that an upper-case letter is used in spite of its lower-case
> > is not used yet.
>
> I have no strong opinion about using %C. If there is better character
> for the escape sequence, I'm happy to use it. So what character is
> more proper? %c?
I think so.
> > Otherwise all looks fine to me except the lack of documentation.
>
> The patch updated postgres-fdw.sgml, but you imply there are other
> documents that the patch should update? Could you tell me where the
> patch should update?
Mmm. I should have missed that part.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
