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

2008-03-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
Add to TODO: * Have /contrib/dblink reuse unnamed connections http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00895.php --- Decibel! wrote: > Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used

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

2007-11-05 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Decibel! wrote: > Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used? > > stats=# select datname,

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

2007-10-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Hannu Krosing wrote: > ?hel kenal p?eval, R, 2007-10-19 kell 15:42, kirjutas Joe Conway: > > Decibel! wrote: > > > O

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

2007-10-22 Thread Hannu Krosing
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 y

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

2007-10-19 Thread 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 d

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

2007-10-19 Thread Decibel!
On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:17 PM, Joe Conway wrote: Decibel! wrote: Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re- used? yes stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=stats'); dblink_connect OK (1 row) stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=postgres'); dblink_conne

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

2007-10-18 Thread Joe Conway
Decibel! wrote: Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used? yes stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=stats'); dblink_connect OK (1 row) stats=# select dblink_connect('dbname=postgres'); dblink_connect OK (1 row) AFAIK there's no

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

2007-10-18 Thread Decibel!
Sorry for the self-reply... On Oct 18, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Decibel! wrote: Is it intentional that dblink's unnamed connections don't get re-used? From the dblink docs (both 8.1 and HEAD): if only one argument is given, the connection is unnamed; only one unnamed connection can exist