On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris Angelico <[email protected]> writes: >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Tianyin Xu <[email protected]> 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 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
