From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw connection caching - cause remote sessions linger till the local session exit |
Date: | 2020-07-06 11:49:43 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACW4UyhLo3AJ_faHeeuvnRP5n7xR8roU+M3M6u72SYNjgQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>
>> If I understand it correctly, your suggestion is to add
>> keep_connection option and use that while defining the server object.
>> IMO having keep_connection option at the server object level may not
>> serve the purpose being discussed here.
>> For instance, let's say I create a foreign server in session 1 with
>> keep_connection on, and I want to use that
>> server object in session 2 with keep_connection off and session 3 with
>> keep_connection on and so on.
>
> In my opinion, in such cases, one needs to create two server object one with
> keep-connection ON and one with keep-connection off. And need to decide
> to use appropriate for the particular session.
>
Yes, having two variants of foreign servers: one with keep-connections
on (this can be default behavior,
even if user doesn't mention this option, internally it can be treated
as keep-connections on) ,
and if users need no connection hashing, another foreign server with
all other options same but keep-connections
off.
This looks okay to me, if we want to avoid a core session level GUC.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-07-06 12:19:21 | Re: jsonpath versus NaN |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-07-06 11:45:41 | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |