| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: portal pinning |
| Date: | 2018-01-10 16:59:40 |
| Message-ID: | c896387b-5690-2c27-311d-730c861130ff@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/8/18 20:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/8/18 15:27, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> This seems like a good idea, and the code change is tiny and clean. I
>> don't know of any third party PLs or other libraries might be pinning
>> the portals already on their own. How would they be affected if they did?
>
> They would get an error if they tried to pin it a second time. So this
> would require a small source-level adjustment. But I doubt this is
> actually the case anywhere, seeing that we are not even using this
> consistently in core.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-01-10 17:02:04 | Re: CUBE seems a bit confused about ORDER BY |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-01-10 16:27:53 | Re: let's make the list of reportable GUCs configurable (was Re: Add %r substitution for psql prompts to show recovery status) |