Re: WIP patch for Todo Item : Provide fallback_application_name in contrib/pgbench, oid2name, and dblink

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
To: "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP patch for Todo Item : Provide fallback_application_name in contrib/pgbench, oid2name, and dblink
Date: 2012-06-13 14:06:41
Message-ID: 004301cd496d$c238d5e0$46aa81a0$@kapila@huawei.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I have created the patch by including fallback_application_name for dblink
as well.
In this I have used the name of fallback_application_name as dblink.

Please let me know your suggestions regarding the same.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:13 AM
To: Amit Kapila
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP patch for Todo Item : Provide
fallback_application_name in contrib/pgbench, oid2name, and dblink

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
> As per the previous discussion in link below, it seems that fallback
> application name needs to be provided for only
>
> pgbench and oid2name.
>
>
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/w2g9837222c1004070216u3bc46b3ahbdd
fdffdbfb46212(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
>
>
>
> However the title of Todo Item suggests it needs to be done for dblink as
> well.
>
> Please suggest if it needs to be done for dblink, if yes then what should
be
> fallback_application_name for it?

Why not 'dblink'?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
fallback_application_name.patch application/octet-stream 5.8 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2012-06-13 14:21:12 Re: [PATCH 16/16] current version of the design document
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2012-06-13 14:02:46 Re: hint bit i/o reduction