Re: DISCARD ALL (Again)

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DISCARD ALL (Again)
Date: 2014-04-18 15:00:23
Message-ID: 53513E07.4050101@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/17/14, 8:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> We could in fact implement #2, I imagine, by destroying and recreating
> the entire language interpreter. So I could imagine implementing a
> "DISCARD INTERPRETERS" kind of command that would zap the current
> interpreter(s) for whichever PL languages happened to feel like
> cooperating with the command.

More generally, any extension could maintain any kind of cross-call
state. plproxy, dblink, pgmemcache come to mind. A general hook into
DISCARD might be doable, but then it's not clear how to categorize this
into DISCARD subcommands.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2014-04-18 15:01:41 Re: DISCARD ALL (Again)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-04-18 14:57:51 Re: assertion in 9.4 with wal_level=logical