On 04/18/2014 01:38 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote: > > > > It does sounds a legitimate feature request to me. I don't remember if > > we honored the request to add resetting of cached sequences, though; if > > we didn't, this one is probably going to be tough too. > > > > +1 > > > > Another point is that to implement this I think there will need to be > > another per-PL entry point to discard session data; are we okay with > > that? Since this probably means a new column in pg_language, we > > couldn't even consider the idea of back-patching. Unless we add a hook, > > which is registered in the PL's _PG_init()? > > > > This week I had some similar trouble, but using "dblink" and "pgbouncer". > As expected "DISCARD ALL" don't clear the extension resources.
Should DISCARD ALL to also clear cached connections in pl/proxy ? Cheers Hannu > > I was thinking if is possible to every extension register his own > "discard" procedure and then the "DISCARD ALL" can execute all > registered extension cleanup procedures. Makes sense? > > > > Are we going to backpatch a doc change that says "releases all temporary > > resources, except for plptyhon's and plperl's GD"? Surely not ... > > > > Maybe this doc can be like that: > > "releases all temporary resources, except for extensions" > > Grettings, > > -- > Fabrízio de Royes Mello > Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL > >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br > >> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com > >> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello > >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
