Re: DISCARD ALL (Again)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DISCARD ALL (Again)
Date: 2014-04-17 21:51:21
Message-ID: 20140417215121.GY5822@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 04/17/2014 02:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> >On 04/17/2014 01:44 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>Does it seem reasonable based on the docs:
> >>
> >>DISCARD ALL:
> >>
> >>Releases all temporary resources associated with the current session and
> >>resets the session to its initial state.
> >>
> >>That we should also release the GD?
> >
> >It does, but that's a feature request, not a bug. Same with pl/perl.
> >
>
> Well I would argue it is a documentation bug/error and that yes, we
> have a legitimate feature request for DISCARD ALL to clear the GD.

It does sounds a legitimate feature request to me. I don't remember if
we honored the request to add resetting of cached sequences, though; if
we didn't, this one is probably going to be tough too.

Another point is that to implement this I think there will need to be
another per-PL entry point to discard session data; are we okay with
that? Since this probably means a new column in pg_language, we
couldn't even consider the idea of back-patching. Unless we add a hook,
which is registered in the PL's _PG_init()?

Are we going to backpatch a doc change that says "releases all temporary
resources, except for plptyhon's and plperl's GD"? Surely not ...

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G Johnston 2014-04-17 23:01:17 Re: DISCARD ALL (Again)
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2014-04-17 21:35:37 Re: DISCARD ALL (Again)