Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Will this patch make it into 8.2?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-12/msg00228.php
It's a really nice feature, would be extremly useful with tools like
pgpool.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Will this patch make it into 8.2?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-12/msg00228.php
It's a really nice feature, would be extremly useful with tools like
pgpool.
No, it will not
Will this patch make it into 8.2?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-12/msg00228.php
It's a really nice feature, would be extremly useful with tools
like pgpool.
No, it will not because RESET CONNECTION can mess up interface code
that doesn't want the
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Will this patch make it into 8.2?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-12/msg00228.php
It's a really nice feature, would be extremly useful with tools like
pgpool.
No, it will not because RESET
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
I'm disappointed.
Can you point out past discussion for this?
Yes:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-01/msg00029.php
---
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Mario
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Will this patch make it into 8.2?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-12/msg00228.php
It's a really nice feature, would be extremly useful with tools like pgpool.
No, it will not because RESET CONNECTION can mess up interface
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Will this patch make it into 8.2?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-12/msg00228.php
It's a really nice feature, would be extremly useful with tools like pgpool.
No, it will not because RESET CONNECTION can mess up interface code that
doesn't want the
I'm disappointed.
Can you point out past discussion for this?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Mario Weilguni wrote:
Will this patch make it into 8.2?
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2004-12/msg00228.php
It's a really nice feature, would be extremly useful with tools
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
What if we create a 'reset_connection' guc that is initially false, and
is set to 'true' when someone resets a connection. Then, when it
happens, the client finds out, reconfigures whatever it needs, then sets
the value back to 'false'.
It seems to
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Can we get a list features we want for RESET CONNECTION? At this point,
I see ideas but no consistent approach. Some say protocol only, others
say an SQL command is fine, but the protocol has to find out it happened
somehow. Is that a plan?
I have enhanced our TODO for
10 matches
Mail list logo