Thread: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

From
Decibel!
Date:
Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used?

stats=# select datname, usename from pg_stat_activity;
datname | usename
---------+---------
stats   | decibel
(1 row)

stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=stats');
dblink_connect
----------------
OK
(1 row)

stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=postgres');
dblink_connect
----------------
OK
(1 row)

stats=# select datname, usename from pg_stat_activity;
datname  | usename
----------+----------
stats    | decibel
stats    | postgres
postgres | postgres
(3 rows)

AFAIK there's no way I could possibly use or refer to the connection  
to stats at this point; so why doesn't dblink close it when I issue  
the second connect?
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828




Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

From
Decibel!
Date:
Sorry for the self-reply...

On Oct 18, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Decibel! wrote:
> Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used?
From the dblink docs (both 8.1 and HEAD):
    if only one argument is given, the connection is unnamed; only  
one unnamed    connection can exist at a time

So this sounds to me like a bug.
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828




Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

From
Joe Conway
Date:
Decibel! wrote:
> Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used?

yes

> stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=stats');
> dblink_connect
> ----------------
> OK
> (1 row)
> 
> stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=postgres');
> dblink_connect
> ----------------
> OK
> (1 row)

> AFAIK there's no way I could possibly use or refer to the connection to 
> stats at this point; so why doesn't dblink close it when I issue the 
> second connect?

Why doesn't C free allocated memory automatically if you reassign a pointer?

No one has ever complained before, so I can't imagine that the resource 
leak is much of an issue in real world cases. But if you don't like the 
behavior, patches are gratefully accepted ;-).

Seriously though, I can change it for 8.3, but is it really worth 
back-patching?

Joe


Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

From
Decibel!
Date:
On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> Decibel! wrote:
>> Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re- 
>> used?
>
> yes
>
>> stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=stats');
>> dblink_connect
>> ----------------
>> OK
>> (1 row)
>> stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=postgres');
>> dblink_connect
>> ----------------
>> OK
>> (1 row)
>
>> AFAIK there's no way I could possibly use or refer to the  
>> connection to stats at this point; so why doesn't dblink close it  
>> when I issue the second connect?
>
> Why doesn't C free allocated memory automatically if you reassign a  
> pointer?
>
> No one has ever complained before, so I can't imagine that the  
> resource leak is much of an issue in real world cases. But if you  
> don't like the behavior, patches are gratefully accepted ;-).
>
> Seriously though, I can change it for 8.3, but is it really worth  
> back-patching?

I think it'd be worth changing for 8.3. While C forces you to worry  
about memory, SQL does not, so I bet this is a surprise to most folks.

It might be worth backpatching the docs, because they're wrong.
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828




Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

From
Joe Conway
Date:
Decibel! wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>
>> Seriously though, I can change it for 8.3, but is it really worth  
>> back-patching?
> 
> I think it'd be worth changing for 8.3. While C forces you to worry  
> about memory, SQL does not, so I bet this is a surprise to most folks.

I don't think anyone has ever noticed -- certainly not enough to 
complain in the past 5 years. This behavior has been the same since day 
one. I don't mind changing it, but I don't see it as a big deal.

> 
> It might be worth backpatching the docs, because they're wrong.

How so? Please provide better wording if you don't like what it 
currently says. Simply saying it is wrong is unhelpful.

Joe


Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

From
Hannu Krosing
Date:
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2007-10-19 kell 15:42, kirjutas Joe Conway:
> Decibel! wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> >>
> >> Seriously though, I can change it for 8.3, but is it really worth  
> >> back-patching?
> > 
> > I think it'd be worth changing for 8.3. While C forces you to worry  
> > about memory, SQL does not, so I bet this is a surprise to most folks.
> 
> I don't think anyone has ever noticed -- certainly not enough to 
> complain in the past 5 years. This behavior has been the same since day 
> one. I don't mind changing it, but I don't see it as a big deal.

Most likely nobody ever uses un-named connection beyond initial testing.

--------------
Hannu



Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:

This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hannu Krosing wrote:
> ?hel kenal p?eval, R, 2007-10-19 kell 15:42, kirjutas Joe Conway:
> > Decibel! wrote:
> > > On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Seriously though, I can change it for 8.3, but is it really worth  
> > >> back-patching?
> > > 
> > > I think it'd be worth changing for 8.3. While C forces you to worry  
> > > about memory, SQL does not, so I bet this is a surprise to most folks.
> > 
> > I don't think anyone has ever noticed -- certainly not enough to 
> > complain in the past 5 years. This behavior has been the same since day 
> > one. I don't mind changing it, but I don't see it as a big deal.
> 
> Most likely nobody ever uses un-named connection beyond initial testing.
> 
> --------------
> Hannu
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decibel! wrote:
> Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used?
> 
> stats=# select datname, usename from pg_stat_activity;
> datname | usename
> ---------+---------
> stats   | decibel
> (1 row)
> 
> stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=stats');
> dblink_connect
> ----------------
> OK
> (1 row)
> 
> stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=postgres');
> dblink_connect
> ----------------
> OK
> (1 row)
> 
> stats=# select datname, usename from pg_stat_activity;
> datname  | usename
> ----------+----------
> stats    | decibel
> stats    | postgres
> postgres | postgres
> (3 rows)
> 
> AFAIK there's no way I could possibly use or refer to the connection  
> to stats at this point; so why doesn't dblink close it when I issue  
> the second connect?
> -- 
> Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
> Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Add to TODO:

* Have /contrib/dblink reuse unnamed connections
 http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00895.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decibel! wrote:
> Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used?
> 
> stats=# select datname, usename from pg_stat_activity;
> datname | usename
> ---------+---------
> stats   | decibel
> (1 row)
> 
> stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=stats');
> dblink_connect
> ----------------
> OK
> (1 row)
> 
> stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=postgres');
> dblink_connect
> ----------------
> OK
> (1 row)
> 
> stats=# select datname, usename from pg_stat_activity;
> datname  | usename
> ----------+----------
> stats    | decibel
> stats    | postgres
> postgres | postgres
> (3 rows)
> 
> AFAIK there's no way I could possibly use or refer to the connection  
> to stats at this point; so why doesn't dblink close it when I issue  
> the second connect?
> -- 
> Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
> Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +