Re: dblink un-named connection doesn't get re-used

Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2007-10-19 kell 15:42, kirjutas Joe Conway:
> Decibel! wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> >>
> >> Seriously though, I can change it for 8.3, but is it really worth  
> >> back-patching?
> > 
> > I think it'd be worth changing for 8.3. While C forces you to worry  
> > about memory, SQL does not, so I bet this is a surprise to most folks.
> 
> I don't think anyone has ever noticed -- certainly not enough to 
> complain in the past 5 years. This behavior has been the same since day 
> one. I don't mind changing it, but I don't see it as a big deal.

Most likely nobody ever uses un-named connection beyond initial testing.

--------------
Hannu