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 current command tag, and the infrastructure
>> c
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 notice that that escape
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 this configurable, similar
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 any downside to this?
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 of situations ("top" for i
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 added