On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes: > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
