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
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? |
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? |