On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 16:40, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> Um, none of the fields I've suggested so far was "connection string".
>>> In fact, that would be Pretty Darn Hard without modifying the client
>>> to actually *send* the connection string. Which id doesn't.
>>
>> So... is there centralized structure which contains the info you're
>> thinking of exposing?
>
> No, not today. That's what would have to be created. (And before you
> or somebody says something, no, it's not on the CF, so this is likely
> a 9.2 feature unless that structure thingy turns out to be a lot
> *less* code than I think it will)
Well, unlike Tom, I don't object to the basic idea, but I reserve the
right to object in detail. :-)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
