On Tuesday 01 December 2009 01:11:13 Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> > <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Le 30 nov. 2009 à 22:38, Robert Haas a écrit :
> >>> I still don't really understand why we wouldn't want RESET ALL to
> >>> reset the application name. In what circumstances would you want the
> >>> application name to stay the same across a RESET ALL?
> >> I can't see any use case, but SET/RESET is tied to SESSION whereas
> >> application_name is a CONNECTION property. So it's a hard sell that
> >> reseting the session will change connection properties.
> > Is there any technical difference between a connection property and a
> > session property? If so, what is it?
> I think the argument about poolers expecting something different is
> hogwash. A pooler would want RESET ALL to revert the connection state
> to what it was at establishment. That would include whatever
> application name the pooler would have specified when it started the
> connection, I should think.
Actually I think the poolers make a good case for a SET variant which emulates
connection set variables...
RESET ALL in a connection pooler does different things than RESET ALL outside
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-12-01 01:02:10|
|Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-12-01 00:11:13|
|Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4 |