Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Application name patch - v4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Date: 2009-12-01 16:19:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> If an application can do SET DEFAULT, how does the connection pooler
>> *really* reset the value back to what it was?

> There has to be some level of trust here :-). As the alternative would
> involve bumping the fe-be protocol version, it seems like a reasonable
> approach to me.

I don't think that we need to bump the protocol version.  The real
alternative here would be that libpq sends a startup packet that
includes application_name, and if it gets an error back from that,
it starts over without the app name.  The main disadvantage would
be that you'd get a double connection attempt == more overhead
anytime you use an 8.5+ libpq to connect to 8.4- server.  People
never complained that hard about the similar double connection attempt
when 7.4+ libpq connected to 7.3- servers, so maybe we should just
go that way.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2009-12-01 16:23:55
Subject: Re: EOL for 7.4?
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-01 16:06:26
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group