On 2021/12/16 11:53, kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com wrote:
> Dear Fujii-san,
>
> Thank you for updating! I read your patches and I have
> only one comment.
>
>> if (strcmp(keywords[i], "application_name") == 0 &&
>> values[i] != NULL && *(values[i]) != '\0')
>
> I'm not sure but do we have a case that values[i] becomes NULL
> even if keywords[i] is "application_name"?
No for now, I guess. But isn't it safer to check that, too? I also could not find strong reason why that check should
bedropped. But you'd like to drop that?
> I think other parts are perfect.
Thanks for the review! At first I pushed 0001 patch.
BTW, 0002 patch adds the regression test that checks pg_stat_activity.application_name. But three months before, we
addedthe similar test when introducing postgres_fdw.application_name GUC and reverted/removed it because it's not
stable[1]. So we should review carefully whether the test 0002 patch adds may have the same issue or not. As far as I
readthe patch, ISTM that the patch has no same issue. But could you double check that?
[1]
https://postgr.es/m/848ff477-effd-42b9-8b25-3f7cfe289398@oss.nttdata.com
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION