On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 16:40, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> >> wrote: >>> Um, none of the fields I've suggested so far was "connection string". >>> In fact, that would be Pretty Darn Hard without modifying the client >>> to actually *send* the connection string. Which id doesn't. >> >> So... is there centralized structure which contains the info you're >> thinking of exposing? > > No, not today. That's what would have to be created. (And before you > or somebody says something, no, it's not on the CF, so this is likely > a 9.2 feature unless that structure thingy turns out to be a lot > *less* code than I think it will)
Well, unlike Tom, I don't object to the basic idea, but I reserve the right to object in detail. :-) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
