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

Re: Application name patch - v4

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 09:18:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Upthread, Tom suggested a new 'SET DEFAULT ...' variant of SET which
>> could be used to set the default GUC value that RESET would revert to.
>> This seems to me to be the ideal solution, and I'd somewhat hesitantly
>> volunteer to work on it (hesitantly as it means touching the parser
>> and other areas of the code I currently have no experience of).
> 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.

Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2009-12-01 09:22:13
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2009-12-01 09:16:45
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4

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