From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: set GUC variables for single query |
Date: | 2011-10-17 00:59:30 |
Message-ID: | 21047.1318813170@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I previously floated the idea of using a new keyword, possibly LET,
> for this, like this:
> LET var = value [, ...] IN query
> I'm not sure if anyone bought it, but I'll run it up the flagpole
> again and see if anyone salutes. I tend to agree with the idea that
> SET LOCAL isn't always what you want; per-transaction is not the same
> as per-query, and multi-command query strings have funny semantics,
> and multiple server round-trips are frequently undesirable; and it
> just seems cleaner, at least IMHO.
Well, syntax aside, the real issue here is that GUC doesn't have
any notion of a statement-lifespan setting, and adding one would require
adding per-statement overhead; not to mention possibly adding
considerable logical complexity, depending on exactly what you wanted to
define as a "statement". I don't think an adequate case has been
made that SET LOCAL is insufficient.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-10-17 01:12:41 | Re: proposal: set GUC variables for single query |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-17 00:53:14 | Re: proposal: set GUC variables for single query |