Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: reset implementation

From: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Federico Di Gregorio <fog(at)dndg(dot)it>
Cc: psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: reset implementation
Date: 2012-05-18 09:53:32
Message-ID: CA+mi_8ZoSNdrRaCLGSCM+KJdLX+J-NBFSubgb4sooP6rVzEx3g@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: psycopg
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Federico Di Gregorio <fog(at)dndg(dot)it> wrote:
> On 17/05/12 17:06, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> psycopg implements the connection.reset() method using the commands
>> RESET ALL and SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION DEFAULT.
>>
>> Reading pgpool2 docs [1], I see that from PG 8.3 "DISCARD ALL" would
>> be more appropriate: it is equivalient to RESET ALL and SET SESSION
>> AUTHORIZATION DEFAULT plus more [2].
>
> What bothers me is that executes the equivalent of:
>
> UNLISTEN *;
>
> IMHO that's correct for connection.reset() but I don't know how many
> people out there are using NOTIFY and .reset() togheter and I don't want
> to break their code.

My assumption is that if somebody calls reset() he doesn't expect the
connection to keep on doing what it was before. But I've already
created more than one issue thinking something wouldn't have had side
effects, while in real world... so I don't want to push too much on
this.

-- Daniele

In response to

Responses

psycopg by date

Next:From: Federico Di GregorioDate: 2012-05-18 13:18:09
Subject: Re: reset implementation
Previous:From: Federico Di GregorioDate: 2012-05-17 15:21:20
Subject: Re: reset implementation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group