| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: session IDs |
| Date: | 2004-02-03 15:47:59 |
| Message-ID: | 200402031647.59293.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I am less sure of the utility of such an ID, though. After all, if
> you see a disconnect log message for a given PID you must know that
> any reuse of that PID indicates a new session, or even if you just
> see a connection message you know it must be a new session. OTOH,
> having a unique SessionID might simplify the logic required of log
> analysis tools.
The PID *is* a unique session ID. Why is it not sufficient?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-02-03 15:57:23 | Re: Why has postmaster shutdown gotten so slow? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-03 15:10:29 | Re: COPY from question |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-03 16:12:03 | Re: session IDs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-03 14:49:16 | Re: [PATCHES] log session end - again |