| From: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: display hot standby state in psql prompt |
| Date: | 2025-11-08 10:21:32 |
| Message-ID: | d4433f02-ee7e-4033-a9f4-f213e4b45a4b@uni-muenster.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Andreas
On 08/11/2025 09:57, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> I am not a fan at all of introducing running a query when calculating
> the prompt. Imagine if there are network issues or otherwise and in
> general I imagine that the prompt can send a query would be highly
> surprising to most users.
I was unable to find a less invasive way to make it work. Initially we
thought about setting transaction_read_only as GUC_REPORT, but we got
concerned about the implicit overhead.
> I personally lean towards that maybe we should keep it simple and go
> back to the origins of the patch which just tried to show if it is a
> standby or not given how complex it is to tell that we are in read-only
> or not. The alternative would be to update the protocol so the client if
> informed if a transaction is read-only or not but I do not think it
> would be possible to convince people to update the protocol just for
> psql. Maybe if some connection pooler would also be interest but I am
> not sure what they would need this for.
If we decide to not consider transaction_read_only for this feature, I
guess we should prevent the prompt to show anything if inside of a
transaction block. Simply ignoring it and showing a potentially wrong
status wouldn't be a good idea.
What do you guys think?
Thanks!
Best, Jim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jose Luis Tallon | 2025-11-08 11:17:19 | Re: Support allocating memory for large strings |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-11-08 09:40:36 | Re: [Patch] Windows relation extension failure at 2GB and 4GB |