From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |
Date: | 2003-03-26 22:56:57 |
Message-ID: | 200303262256.h2QMuvr08983@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >>> How about sending an INFO or special taged message to the client when
> >>> there is a GUC change, and have report_changes as a GUC variable that
> >>> controls it?
> >>
> >> Having such a variable would break the client libraries that need the
> >> information. They won't stop needing the info just because some DBA
> >> thinks it's a good idea to save a few bytes of bandwidth ...
>
> > You could configure it so once it is set by the client, only the client
> > can change it, meaning it doesn't read from postgresql.conf.
>
> I'm not seeing the point, though. The amount of bandwidth involved is
> insignificant, so there's no value in turning it off. AFAICT Peter's
> objection to adding this is complexity, not bandwidth --- and adding a
> control knob as you suggest will only make it even more complex.
My basic idea was using INFO-like message to send the SET change
information.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-26 23:08:52 | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-26 22:55:27 | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |