On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 8:56 AM Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:
1. Add a new field to the PGconn structure
This kind of defeats one of the major strengths of this patch, which is allowing systems that don't speak the protocol to get at this information.
Regarding configuration, I'd prefer a single GUC. The value can be a comma-separated list of keywords, each representing particular piece of information to be exposed.
Yes, I could see some advantages to that, although I still like the simplicity of separate boolean values. I've no strong feelings either way. Let's see if others weigh in.
Чтобы сделать работу с сайтом удобнее, мы используем cookie и аналитический сервис «Яндекс.Метрика». Продолжая пользоваться сайтом, вы соглашаетесь с их использованием.