Re: Application name patch - v4
- From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
- To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
- Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:06:12 -0500
- Message-id: <603c8f070911301406r2920fd84re8d4f89996f488b3@mail.gmail.com> <text/plain>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
> Le 30 nov. 2009 à 22:38, Robert Haas a écrit :
>> I still don't really understand why we wouldn't want RESET ALL to
>> reset the application name. In what circumstances would you want the
>> application name to stay the same across a RESET ALL?
>
> I can't see any use case, but SET/RESET is tied to SESSION whereas application_name is a CONNECTION property. So it's a hard sell that reseting the session will change connection properties.
Is there any technical difference between a connection property and a
session property? If so, what is it?
ISTM that the only time you're likely going to use RESET ALL is in a
connection pooling environment, and that if you're in a connection
pooling environment you probably want to reset the application name
along with everything else. I might be wrong, but that's how it seems
to me at first blush.
...Robert
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index