Re: Application name patch - v4

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Date: 2009-11-30 07:20:46
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Monday 30 November 2009 01:16:43 Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > : One possibility would be to make it possible to issue SETs that
> >
> > behave : as if set in a startup packet - imho its an implementation
> > detail that : SET currently is used.
> >
> > I think there's a good deal of merit in this, and it would't be hard
> > at all to implement, seeing that we already have SET LOCAL and SET
> > SESSION. We could add a third keyword, say SET DEFAULT, that would
> > have the behavior of setting the value in a fashion that would
> > persist across resets. I'm not sure that DEFAULT is exactly le mot
> > juste here, but agreeing on a keyword would probably be the hardest
> > part of making it happen.
> Hm, but without a way to prevent the users of a connection pool from
> issuing "SET DEFAULT", that leaves a connection pool with no way to
> revert a connection to a known state.
Perhaps we should only allow a few parameters to be SET as a connection
default - then the pooler would have to issue those just as it has to do for
actual connection defaults.

> How about "SET CONNECTION", with an additional GUC called
> connection_setup which can only be set to true, never back to false.
> Once connection_setup is set to true, further SET CONNECTION attempts
> would fail.
How would that help the pooler case? The next connection to it might be from a
different application.


In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Itagaki Takahiro 2009-11-30 07:26:01 Re: ProcessUtility_hook
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2009-11-30 06:55:11 Re: draft RFC: concept for partial, wal-based replication