Hi Shigeru/Robert, -----Original Message----- From: Shigeru HANADA [mailto:shigeru.han...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 6:57 AM
(2012/06/28 11:16), Robert Haas wrote: >> If it can be done without costing anything meaningful, I don't object, >> but I would humbly suggest that this is not hugely important one way >> or the other. application_name is primarily a monitoring convenience, >> so it's not hugely important to have it set anyway, and >> fallback_application_name is only going to apply in cases where the >> user doesn't care enough to bother setting application_name. Let's >> not knock ourselves out to solve a problem that may not be that >> important to begin with. >Thanks for clarification. I got the point. > The way fixing oid2name and pgbench seems reasonable, so applying it to > vacuumlo (as Peter mentioned) would be enough for this issue. Shall I consider following 2 points to update the patch: 1. Apply changes similar to pgbench and oid2name for vacuumlo 2. Remove the modifications for dblink. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
