Re: Application name patch - v4

On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
>  > On 12/1/09, Tom Lane <tgl@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