| From: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| Date: | 2002-04-21 23:36:44 |
| Message-ID: | 3CC34D0C.F24DA7E5@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hmm. In looking at SET, why couldn't we develop this as an extendable
capability a la pg_proc? If PostgreSQL knew how to link up the set
keyword with a call to a subroutine, then we could go ahead and call
that routine generically, right? Do the proposals on the table call for
this kind of implementation, or are they all "extra-tabular"?
We could make this extensible by defining a separate table, or by
defining a convention for pg_proc as we do under different circumstances
with type coersion.
The side effects of the calls would still need some protection to be
rolled back on transaction abort.
Comments?
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-21 23:53:47 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-21 23:22:40 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-21 23:53:47 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-21 23:22:40 | Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...) |