2017-06-14 19:56 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>: > On 2017-06-12 10:32:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Daniel Verite" <dan...@manitou-mail.org> writes: > > > PGC_POSTMASTER implies that it's an instance-wide setting. > > > Is is intentional? I can understand that it's more secure for this not > to > > > be changeable in an existing session, but it's also much less usable > if you > > > can't set it per-database and per-user. > > > Maybe it should be PGC_SUSET ? > > > > Bearing in mind that I'm not really for this at all... > > FWIW, I agree that this isn't something we should do. For one the GUC > would really have to be GUC_REPORT, which'll cost everyone, and will > break things like pgbouncer. I also don't think it's a good solution to > the problem at hand - there *are* cases where application > *intentionally* use PQexec() with multiple statements, namely when > aggregate latency is an issue. Since it's an application writer's choice > whether to use it, it seems to make not that much sense to have a > serverside guc - it can't really be sensible set. If you want to do > something here, you should probably work on convincing ORM etc. writers > to use PQexecParams(). >
sometimes you are without possibility to check a control what application does. The tools on server side is one possibility. Regards Pavel > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
