Re: Application name patch - v4 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Application name patch - v4
Date
Msg-id 200912011011.49514.andres@anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Application name patch - v4  (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tuesday 01 December 2009 09:59:17 Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > Actually I think the poolers make a good case for a SET variant which
> > emulates connection set variables...
> >
> > RESET ALL in a connection pooler does different things than RESET ALL
> > outside of one.
> 
> Eh? Not sure I follow that, but then I haven't had a coffee yet.
Well. RESET ALL in a pooler sets values to the initial connection values the 
pooler had, not the ones of pooled connection.

On the same time there are multiple people complaining about such default 
values being contraproductive to pooling environments because they reset to 
the wrong values.
I dont really get that argument - the pooler should just issue a SET 
CONNECTION DEFAULT for all connection values. That would make it far more 
transparent than before...

> 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).
As I had initially suggested something like that I agree here.


Andres


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dave Page
Date:
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4