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

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used
Date: 2007-10-22 21:22:54
Message-ID: 1193088174.28269.1.camel@hannu-laptop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2007-10-22 21:37:18 Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-10-22 21:08:55 Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4