Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@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