Re: Client application name

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote:
>>> besides, as Robert mention, because of pooler connections using a GUC
>>> is more appropiate...
>
>> I'd like both options to be available to the programmer.
>
> We have several things already that can be fed either from an
> environment variable or an option in the connection string.
> Is there any compelling reason why those two mechanisms aren't
> adequate for this?

Err, yes - see above. And didn't you also say it was essential to be
able to change it after the initial connection (for which the GUC
seems like the obvious solution)?


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com