On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> > On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> >> If you're happy with handling the existing connection parameters in a given
> >> way, why would you not want application_name behaving that same way?
>
> > Well, in pgbouncer case, the parameters tracked via ParamStatus are
> > handled transparently. (client_encoding, datestyle, timezone,
> > standard_conforming_strings)
>
>
> Hmm, I had not thought about that. Is it sensible to mark
> application_name as GUC_REPORT so that pgbouncer can be smart about it?
> The actual overhead of such a thing would be probably be unmeasurable in
> the normal case where it's only set via the startup packet, but it seems
> a bit odd.
IMHO it is sensible, if we really want the option to follow client.
--
marko
