Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
Date: 2003-03-20 16:03:57
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0303191715070.3580-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces

Bruce Momjian writes:

> True, but GUC seems like the way to go, and we have per-user/db settings
> for GUC.

But the required autocommit setting depends neither on the user nor the
database, it depends on the identity of the client application. That type
of granularity is not offered by GUC.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-03-20 16:04:38 Re: More outdated examples
Previous Message Michael Meskes 2003-03-20 16:02:18 timestamp/date in ecpg

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-03-20 16:10:36 Re: I want to send comments to the backend!
Previous Message Gerhard Häring 2003-03-20 16:00:48 Re: I want to send comments to the backend!