On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 16:40, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> 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) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
