| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Application name patch - v4 |
| Date: | 2009-11-30 22:06:12 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070911301406r2920fd84re8d4f89996f488b3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
> Le 30 nov. 2009 à 22:38, Robert Haas a écrit :
>> I still don't really understand why we wouldn't want RESET ALL to
>> reset the application name. In what circumstances would you want the
>> application name to stay the same across a RESET ALL?
>
> I can't see any use case, but SET/RESET is tied to SESSION whereas application_name is a CONNECTION property. So it's a hard sell that reseting the session will change connection properties.
Is there any technical difference between a connection property and a
session property? If so, what is it?
ISTM that the only time you're likely going to use RESET ALL is in a
connection pooling environment, and that if you're in a connection
pooling environment you probably want to reset the application name
along with everything else. I might be wrong, but that's how it seems
to me at first blush.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | 张中 | 2009-11-30 23:10:25 | 答复: [HACKERS] is isolation level 'Serializable' in pg not same as 'serializable' in SQL-92? |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-11-30 21:54:54 | Re: Application name patch - v4 |