Re: Client application name - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Client application name
Date
Msg-id 603c8f070910211147y37d00f42s62b4b848346da481@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Client application name  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Client application name
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> The post-connect SET still seems like the best choice to me.
>
>> Are we really thinking about interposing an additional server
>> round-trip on every connection for such a marginal feature (to
>> paraphrase yourself)?  That doesn't seem like a good trade-off.
>
> Only connections that are actually using the feature.  It doesn't
> bother me that much --- before 7.4 we had *multiple* round trips
> involved in a connection start,

OK, but surely we're not saying that was good?  I presume we fixed
that for a reason and want it to stay fixed.

> and anyway backend startup is a
> pretty dang heavyweight operation.
>
> If you are concerned about that you should certainly not be advocating
> multiple connection tries instead.  That's a lot of round trips too,
> plus you are paying repeated fork and backend-startup overhead.

Yeah, I don't like that either, but at least it only happens when you
have a server-version mismatch, and even then (if we accept Dave's
other suggestion) only for releases prior to 8.5.  I'd rather it be
dog-slow in a rare situation that I can avoid through proper
configuration than moderately slow in a common situation that I can't
escape short of not using the feature.

Of course, the difficulty of implementation is another issue...

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Client application name
Next
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution