Greetings, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > The issue here is exactly that at the point where we emit the > > 'connection authorized' message, we haven't processed generic GUCs from > > the startup packet yet and therefore application_name isn't set as a > > GUC and, as a result, isn't included in the 'connection authorized' > > message, even if it's specified in log_line_prefix. > > > > There's no way, today, to get the application name included in the > > 'connection authorized' message, which certainly seems unfortunate and a > > bit surprising, hence this patch to fix that. > > OK, that makes more sense, but I'm still skeptical of adding a special > case particularly for application_name.
I'd argue that application_name, when available, makes as much sense to have in the connection authorization message as the other hard-coded values (user, database), and those actually do get set and included in the log_line_prefix when connection authorized is logged, if they're asked for. There certainly wasn't too much concern raised over adding the SSL information to that same message, nor complaints from what I recall. I did also look at the other items available through log_line_prefix and didn't see anything else that really felt like it should be included. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
