Sorry for missing this. At Thu, 27 Jan 2022 19:26:39 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > > On 2022/01/27 17:10, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > I don't object to adding more meaningful replacements, but more escape > > sequence makes me anxious about the increased easiness of exceeding > > the size limit of application_name. > > If this is really an issue, it might be time to reconsider the size > limit of application_name. If it's considered too short, the patch > that enlarges it should be proposed separately.
That makes sense. > > Considering that it is used to > > identify fdw-initinator server, we might need to add padding (or > > rather truncating) option in the escape sequence syntax, then warn > > about truncated application_names for safety. > > I failed to understand this. Could you tell me why we might need to > add padding option here? My point was "truncating" option, which limits the length of the replacement string. But expanding the application_name limit is more sensible. > > Is the reason for 'C' in upper-case to avoid possible conflict with > > 'c' of log_line_prefix? > > Yes. > > > I'm not sure that preventive measure is worth > > doing. Looking the escape-sequence spec alone, it seems to me rather > > strange that an upper-case letter is used in spite of its lower-case > > is not used yet. > > I have no strong opinion about using %C. If there is better character > for the escape sequence, I'm happy to use it. So what character is > more proper? %c? I think so. > > Otherwise all looks fine to me except the lack of documentation. > > The patch updated postgres-fdw.sgml, but you imply there are other > documents that the patch should update? Could you tell me where the > patch should update? Mmm. I should have missed that part. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
