Re: Application name patch - v4 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: Application name patch - v4
Date
Msg-id FEC7C55F-74DB-4BFE-BAFA-BD8D3DAB5046@hi-media.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Application name patch - v4  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Application name patch - v4
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

Le 29 nov. 2009 à 18:22, Tom Lane a écrit :
>> I think we should use GUC_NO_RESET_ALL.
>
> I agree with you, but it seems we have at least as many votes to not do
> that.  Any other votes out there?

Driven by the pooler use case (pgbouncer, even), I'd say RESET ALL should reset also the application name. And the
connectionvalue is not tied any more to something sensible as soon as you have pooling in there... 

Regards,
--
dim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Boszormenyi Zoltan
Date:
Subject: Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication
Next
From: Brendan Jurd
Date:
Subject: Re: cvs chapters in our docs