On 2018-06-22 15:26:06 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Jun-22, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2018-06-22 12:16:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > OK, that makes more sense, but I'm still skeptical of adding a special > > > case particularly for application_name. > > > > I think a fair argument could be made that you'd want to have > > application_name logged exactly once, not in every line. Just to cope > > with log volume. With decent log analysis tools once is enough. > > Seems harder than it sounds ... because if the user turns off > log_connections then it's not longer in the log.
That's superuser only, so I really don't quite buy that argument. > And what about the application changing it after the fact? I don't think that matters in a lot of scenarios. Poolers are the big exception to that, obviously. > One idea would be to have a log line designed specifically to be > printed once at connection start (if not log_connections) and then > once immediately after it changes. Am I the only one for whom this > sounds like overengineering? Yea. I think on balance, I don't buy that it's worth the cost. But I don't think it's a clear cut "you don't need this". Greetings, Andres Freund
