On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 15:19, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote:
>
> On 12/23/20 3:47 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov wrote:
> > Simon>It seems strange to me that we put this work onto the pooler, forcing
> > Simon>poolers to repeatedly issue the same command
> >
> > What if poolers learn to manage connections and prepared statements better?
> > Then poolers won't have to reset the session every time, and everyone wins.
>
> While that is be possible to implement since some client libraries
> implement this in their pools (e.g. Sequel for Ruby) this patch would
> help connection poolers which are not aware of prepared statements, for
> example PgBouncer, so it is worthwhile as long as there are connection
> poolers out there which are not aware of prepared statements. And even
> the connection poolers which are aware might want to automatically drop
> temporary tables and reset GUCs. So I do not think that this feature
> would become pointless even if people write a patch for PgBouncer.
The whole premise of the patch is tighter integration, with the server
providing the facilities that poolers need.
The patch can be enhanced to do whatever else we agree is desirable.
Do we need something like DISCARD ALL EXCEPT PREPARED STATEMENTS; ??
If there are different requirements for each pooler, what are they?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/