Re: Client application name - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: Client application name
Date
Msg-id 937d27e10910140027t3206118ch1d6273b92df19406@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Client application name  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Client application name
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
>>> besides, as Robert mention, because of pooler connections using a GUC
>>> is more appropiate...
>
>> I'd like both options to be available to the programmer.
>
> We have several things already that can be fed either from an
> environment variable or an option in the connection string.
> Is there any compelling reason why those two mechanisms aren't
> adequate for this?

Err, yes - see above. And didn't you also say it was essential to be
able to change it after the initial connection (for which the GUC
seems like the obvious solution)?


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: KaiGai Kohei
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls
Next
From: Itagaki Takahiro
Date:
Subject: Re: Buffer usage in EXPLAIN and pg_stat_statements (review)