Re: SET LOCAL again

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> > As an alternative syntax I can suggest
> >>
> > SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
> >>
> >> Ugh. Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
>
> > SET LOCAL is already used for something else in the SQL standard. Not
> > sure if we'll ever implement that, but it's something to be concerned
> > about.
>
> Actually, it looks to me like the spec's SET LOCAL has a compatible
> interpretation: it only affects the current transaction.
>
> My main gripe with "ON COMMIT RESET" is that it's a misleading
> description of what will happen --- RESETting a variable is quite
> different from allowing it to revert to the pre-transaction state.

I don't like stuff trailing off at the end, especially three words.
That SET command is getting so big, it may fall over. ;-)

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026