On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Tianyin Xu <tixu@cs.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>> I still wonder why application_name appears in the configuration file if it
>>> cannot take effort :-P
>
>> Not sure what you mean by that, but my postgresql.conf doesn't have
>> anything about application_name. But if it did, it would be a default
>> that an application can override.
>
> The reason background processes don't print anything for %a is that it's
> presumed it couldn't possibly be set to anything meaningful.
Why wouldn't 'bgwriter', 'autovacuum', 'checkpointer', etc. be meaningful?
Cheers,
Jeff
