Re: [PATCHES] Implementing RESET CONNECTION ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, eg(at)cybertec(dot)at
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Implementing RESET CONNECTION ...
Date: 2006-04-25 15:27:07
Message-ID: 19532.1145978827@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Should we add it for 8.2 and see if we get any problem reports?

No. I don't believe this can work without a far more invasive patch
than this is. To point out just one problem, what of cached plans in
plpgsql functions? Those can't be carried across a genuine connection
reset (permissions and search path are two reasons why not). And the
protocol issues are not something you can just ignore, because the
command does break reasonable driver-level expectations.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Wes 2006-04-25 15:43:17 Re: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem building indexes
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-04-25 15:19:54 Re: [HACKERS] Suggestion: Which Binary?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Wheeler 2006-04-25 15:57:11 Re: [HACKERS] Suggestion: Which Binary?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-04-25 15:19:54 Re: [HACKERS] Suggestion: Which Binary?