Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom, did you have any thought of adding the ability to ask for reports
> > on GUC variables on every query return?
>
> That seems excessive. There is a case for reporting autocommit (if
> we don't decide to remove it altogether, which is still an open
> argument). I have not heard any complaints suggesting that we need any
> others.
Well, the jdbc guys like SET, and I haven't seen any proposal that
explains how applications would control a client-based autocommit API
from the client.
> A fixed commitment to report xact status will cost us one byte added to
> Z messages. If we add a commitment to report autocommit status, we
> could choose to pack that bit into the same byte as xact status (still
> only three bits used...). A slightly more forward-looking approach
> would be to decree that Z messages carry labeled status bytes, ie, pairs
> of <label> <status> bytes, which makes total cost 4 bytes to transmit
> xact state and autocommit state. But if we want to say that we'll
> transmit *any* darn random GUC variable you want to hear about, I don't
> think we can use a compact encoding of this sort; instead we're talking
> about sending the whole GUC variable name and string value as label and
> value. In other words the Z message starts to look like
> Z X a c t s t a t u s \0 i d l e \0 a u t o c o m m i t \0 o f f \0
> and somewhere around here my concern for connection bandwidth kicks in.
> A 10X increase in bytes sent is a bit much to cater to hypothetical
> needs.
Very true. The only other environment variable I have heard about was
client encoding. As I remember right now, we do have a problem with SET
changing the client encoding, and the client not realizing that.
My idea may be overdesign.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073