Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> But having said that, I don't exactly see why you couldn't force it
>> with an ultimately-redundant SetConfigOption call to put the value
>> in place before the ereport happens. The GUC machinery is surely
>> functional before we do authorization.
> If that's the approach you think makes the most sense, I wouldn't object
> to it. I will point out that we'd end up with the application name in
> the log line if it's also included in log_line_prefix, but that's what
> happens with "user" anyway, isn't it?, so that doesn't seem to be a big
> deal. I do think it's still good to have appplication_name explicitly
> in the log message for users who want to just log application_name on
> connection and not have it on every single log line.
Well, if you're going to insist on that part, it's probably not worth
making the application_name GUC have inconsistent behavior.
regards, tom lane
