On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Kevin Grittner<kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > On the admin list there was a request for an application name > column in pg_stat_activity. > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2009-07/msg00095.php > > This is available in a lot of other DBMS products, can be useful to > DBAs, and seems pretty cheap and easy. Could we get that onto the > TODO list?
I think you should just add it. Ok, we probably need some kind of policy for what to do before "just" adding things to the TODO but I think it should be relatively liberal. Something like, you should post that you're going to add it to the -hackers list, get at least one person agreeing with the item and no fatal flaws. Oh, and you should check for duplicates or for the same item on the "things we don't want" list. But if having done that you should assume it's up to you to just go ahead and add it. In this case I don't see any harm in having an opaque application identifier. Dangers (but surmountable ones I assume) would be: 1) The authenticity of the application identifier needs to be downplayed -- don't even think of using it for security for example. 2) encoding issues if different connections are in different encodings... 3) backwards compatibility both in the library api and protocol -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
