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)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
