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

Re: Application name patch - v4

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Date: 2009-11-30 22:06:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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?

ISTM that the only time you're likely going to use RESET ALL is in a
connection pooling environment, and that if you're in a connection
pooling environment you probably want to reset the application name
along with everything else.  I might be wrong, but that's how it seems
to me at first blush.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: 张中Date: 2009-11-30 23:10:25
Subject: 答复: [HACKERS] is isolation level 'Serializable' in pg not same as 'serializable' in SQL-92?
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2009-11-30 21:54:54
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group