On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave Page <[email protected]> writes: > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't think that we need to bump the protocol version. The real > >> alternative here would be that libpq sends a startup packet that > >> includes application_name, and if it gets an error back from that, > >> it starts over without the app name. > > > > I looked (briefly) at doing that when we first ran into this > > suggestion. As you pointed out at the time, it seemed like that would > > require some fairly ugly hackery in fe-connect.c > > > Perhaps, but at the time it wasn't apparent that issuing a separate SET > would create user-visible behavioral inconsistencies. Now that we've > realized that, I think we should reconsider. > > If people are agreed that double connect is a better alternative > I'm willing to go look at how to make it happen.
Is it supposed to work with pooling or not? If the pooler gets new connection with same username:database as some existing connection, but with different appname, what it is supposed to do? -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
