From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: session IDs |
Date: | 2004-02-03 16:12:03 |
Message-ID: | 401FC853.1070105@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>I am less sure of the utility of such an ID, though. After all, if
>>you see a disconnect log message for a given PID you must know that
>>any reuse of that PID indicates a new session, or even if you just
>>see a connection message you know it must be a new session. OTOH,
>>having a unique SessionID might simplify the logic required of log
>>analysis tools.
>>
>>
>
>The PID *is* a unique session ID. Why is it not sufficient?
>
It's unique for the duration of the session, but it won't be for logs
covering a sufficient period of time, because PIDs are reused, in some
cases not even by cycling but being allocated randomly.
As I said elsewhere, I can live with that, but others wanted something
that was more unique (if such a term has meaning ;-)
cheers
andrew ("You are unique. Just like everybody else.")
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-03 16:12:49 | Re: Idea about better configuration options for sort memory |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-02-03 15:57:23 | Re: Why has postmaster shutdown gotten so slow? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-03 16:14:34 | Re: [PATCHES] log session end - again |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-02-03 15:47:59 | Re: session IDs |