From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL |
Date: | 2007-10-04 20:14:51 |
Message-ID: | 1191528891.4223.225.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:03 -0700, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 15:50 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Somebody who wants the
> > > above behavior can send "ROLLBACK; DISCARD ALL".
> >
> > ...which generates an ERROR if no transaction is in progress and fills
> > the log needlessly.
>
> Well, it's a WARNING, but your point is taken. Can't a clueful interface
> just check what the transaction status of the connection is, rather than
> unconditionally issuing a ROLLBACK?
I think it can, but can't a clueful server do this and avoid the problem
of non-clueful interfaces?
This is making me think that we should just embed the session pool
inside the server as well and have done with it.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-04 20:24:43 | Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-10-04 20:03:22 | Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-04 20:24:43 | Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-10-04 20:03:22 | Re: Connection Pools and DISCARD ALL |