On 10/24/15 7:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Korry Douglas > <korry.doug...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> When you call pg_is_in_recovery(), you should schema-qualify the function >> name, just in case some other version of that function exists in the >> search_path. > > I wonder whether it's really a good idea to put this kind of logic > into libpq at all. I think there was some previous votes against > doing so, and I tend to agree with that viewpoint. Shouldn't probing > for the state of the connection be the caller's job, not libpq's? If > somebody wants to write a wrapper function around this that runs this > query after connecting - or any other query - they can do so.
Well, earlier there was a debate whether any of this should be in libpq. I think asking for a read-only or read-write connection would be quite useful, and there isn't really a lot of room for interpretation that would lead to a lot of application-specific implementations. That said, it might still be best to omit this from the first round of the patch, to simplify the discussion. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers