Oliver Jowett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe the RESET CONNECTION command
>> should have an option whether to zap prepared statements or not?
> That doesn't really help the JDBC driver case. The problem is that there
> are prepared statements that have been set up by the driver invisibly to
> the user. Zapping them will make the driver break, and it's too easy for
> the user code to do a full RESET CONNECTION and accidently zap them.
Fair point, but you could make the same argument against *any* side
effect of RESET CONNECTION. You're just complaining about PREPARE
because you can see immediately where that breaks JDBC. Anything that
any driver does to set up per-connection state the way it wants will
be equally vulnerable.
> Having notification of either prepared statement deallocation or
> connection reset (a la ParameterStatus for GUC changes) would help the
> driver to recover from this case.
I'm inclined to think that we'd have to add a protocol message that
reports RESET CONNECTION to really answer objections of this type.
That seems to bring the thing into the category of "stuff that forces
a protocol version bump" :-(
Perhaps RESET CONNECTION should be a protocol-level operation instead
of a SQL command? That would prevent user-level code from causing it
without the driver knowing.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
