I completely agree with Karel. I think it is a bad idea to change the protocol for such a minor feature - i tend to call it overkill.
I want to add one point to this discussion: There is not just JDBC - other connection pools or clients might want different behaviour (which can from my point of view only lead to a complete reset).

If the JDBC driver prefers different behaviour (maybe for prepared statements) we should discuss further options for RESET.
Now there is: RESET CONNECTION (cleaning entire connection), RESET ALL (cleaning GUCS only) and RESET some_guc.
Personally I think this is not a good idea.



Karel Zak wrote:
On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 20:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

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.

I still don't see a big difference between DEALLOCATE and RESET -- both
can break the JDBC driver. I'm not sure if we need prevent bad usage of
PG tools (JDBC in this case). The DEALLOCATE/RESET usage is under user's
full control and everything can be described in docs.

I think each PG command returns some status. For example in libpq it's
possible check by PQcmdStatus(). I think JDBC can checks this status (by
own PQcmdStatus() implementation) and if PG returns string "CONNECTION-
RESETED" it can deallocate internal stuff. This solution doesn't require
touch the protocol.


Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at

---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to