Re: proposal: custom variables management

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... So it's really a pretty poor fit. If we want to support
>> general-purpose intrasession variables, I think something other than GUC
>> ought to be providing 'em. (And, of course, it seems likely that you
>> could provide such functionality with a few functions in
>> your-favorite-PL, without any core changes at all.)

> I think I agree with you :-)

> But then every PL needs to invent it's own variable persistence

Why? You do it once, you can call it from SQL or any PL. Doing it in a
PL would constrain you to using a function-like syntax whereas a core
feature would have more flexibility of syntax, but I don't see that as a
big advantage --- looking at GUC's history, we've added function-style
APIs (current_setting() etc) when we already had specialized syntax.

regards, tom lane