On Tuesday 01 December 2009 01:11:13 Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Dimitri Fontaine > > > > <dfonta...@hi-media.com> wrote: > >> Le 30 nov. 2009 à 22:38, Robert Haas a écrit : > >>> I still don't really understand why we wouldn't want RESET ALL to > >>> reset the application name. In what circumstances would you want the > >>> application name to stay the same across a RESET ALL? > >> > >> I can't see any use case, but SET/RESET is tied to SESSION whereas > >> application_name is a CONNECTION property. So it's a hard sell that > >> reseting the session will change connection properties. > > > > Is there any technical difference between a connection property and a > > session property? If so, what is it? > I think the argument about poolers expecting something different is > hogwash. A pooler would want RESET ALL to revert the connection state > to what it was at establishment. That would include whatever > application name the pooler would have specified when it started the > connection, I should think. Actually I think the poolers make a good case for a SET variant which emulates connection set variables...
RESET ALL in a connection pooler does different things than RESET ALL outside of one. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
