On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> writes: > > On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> If you're happy with handling the existing connection parameters in a given > >> way, why would you not want application_name behaving that same way? > > > Well, in pgbouncer case, the parameters tracked via ParamStatus are > > handled transparently. (client_encoding, datestyle, timezone, > > standard_conforming_strings) > > > Hmm, I had not thought about that. Is it sensible to mark > application_name as GUC_REPORT so that pgbouncer can be smart about it? > The actual overhead of such a thing would be probably be unmeasurable in > the normal case where it's only set via the startup packet, but it seems > a bit odd.
IMHO it is sensible, if we really want the option to follow client. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
