Re: Implementing RESET CONNECTION ...

(cc'ing -hackers)

Karel Zak wrote:

> I think command status is common and nice feedback for client. I think
> it's more simple change something in JDBC than change protocol that is
> shared between more tools.

There is a bit of a queue of changes that would be nice to have but
require a protocol version change. If we're going to change the protocol
for any of those we might as well handle RESET CONNECTION cleanly too.

> We need some common way how detect on client what's happen on server --
> a way that doesn't mean change protocol always when we add some
> feature/command to backend. The command status is possible use for this.

Command status only works if commands are directly executed. If you can
execute the command indirectly, e.g. via a PL, then you'll miss the
notification. Making RESET a top-level-only command isn't unreasonable,
but using command status won't work as a general approach for notifying
clients.

We have a mechanism for GUC changes that uses a separate message
(ParameterStatus). Perhaps that should be generalized to report
different sorts of connection-related changes.

-O