| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-09 23:42:59 |
| Message-ID: | 3CB37C83.3044541F@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> writes:
> > It's good point. Why not make it more transparent? You want
> > encapsulate it to standard and current SET statement, but if it's
> > something different why not use for it different statement?
>
> > SET SESSION search_path TO 'something';
>
> But a plain SET is also setting the value for the session. What's
> the difference? Why should a user remember that he must use this
> syntax for search_path, and not for any other variables (or perhaps
> only one or two other ones, further down the road)?
ISTM what Karel meant is that if the search_path is a
much more significant variable than others you had better
express the difference using a different statement.
I agree with Karel though I don't know how siginificant
the varible is.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-09 23:51:55 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-09 23:33:19 | Re: timeout implementation issues |