| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Application name patch - v4 |
| Date: | 2009-12-01 09:18:39 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10912010118h60015017neb93e00bd39cda5c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Upthread, Tom suggested a new 'SET DEFAULT ...' variant of SET which
>> could be used to set the default GUC value that RESET would revert to.
>> This seems to me to be the ideal solution, and I'd somewhat hesitantly
>> volunteer to work on it (hesitantly as it means touching the parser
>> and other areas of the code I currently have no experience of).
>
> If an application can do SET DEFAULT, how does the connection pooler
> *really* reset the value back to what it was?
There has to be some level of trust here :-). As the alternative would
involve bumping the fe-be protocol version, it seems like a reasonable
approach to me.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2009-12-01 09:22:13 | Re: Application name patch - v4 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-12-01 09:16:45 | Re: Application name patch - v4 |