From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Gauthier, Dave" <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: init script or procedure |
Date: | 2011-08-24 15:51:03 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0znpx=S=q0aUAAVS+rO0m4GPFDp1OaVk+hv5K2Wc-OF+A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> . This is not task for server,
>>
>> I disagree. Other databases have them (see
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb326598.aspx) and they are
>> highly used and useful.
>
> other databases has own integrated connection pooling
>
> I am not absolutely against - but we need a integrated pool before
not to argue the point, but connection pooling is only one reason of
many why you would want a logon trigger, and integrated connection
pooling is not a prerequisite for them being implemented IMO. Login
triggers are useful any time the client code is not completely under
your control, for example when logging in with psql/pgadmin or any
time really when the actionable item is required from the servers'
point of view.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Carlos Henrique Reimer | 2011-08-24 16:18:37 | Explain Analyze understanding |
Previous Message | Samba | 2011-08-24 15:33:17 | Streaming Replication: Observations, Questions and Comments |