Re: [HACKERS] application_name in process name?

Mike Blackwell writes: > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> It occurs to me that we could also remove the update_process_title GUC: >> what you would do is configure a process_title pattern that doesn't >> include the %-escape for

Re: [HACKERS] application_name in process name?

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > It occurs to me that we could also remove the update_process_title GUC: > what you would do is configure a process_title pattern that doesn't > include the %-escape for current command tag, and the infrastructure > could

Re: [HACKERS] application_name in process name?

Jim Nasby writes: > On 7/13/16 12:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> In a lot of situations ("top" for instance) only a limited number of >> characters can be displayed from a process title. I'm hesitant to add >> fields to that string that we don't really need. > Could we make

Re: [HACKERS] application_name in process name?

On 7/13/16 12:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Mike Blackwell writes: There are times when it would be useful to have the application_name connection parameter displayed in the process name - and thus in ps and pg_top - in addition to the user and database name. Would there be

Re: [HACKERS] application_name in process name?

Mike Blackwell writes: > There are times when it would be useful to have the application_name > connection parameter displayed in the process name - and thus in ps and > pg_top - in addition to the user and database name. > Would there be any downside to this? In a lot

[HACKERS] application_name in process name?

There are times when it would be useful to have the application_name connection parameter displayed in the process name - and thus in ps and pg_top - in addition to the user and database name. Would there be any downside to this? If it were done, are there any suggestions on how it could be