From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Per-function GUC settings: trickier than it looked |
Date: | 2007-09-04 01:02:07 |
Message-ID: | 6345.1188867727@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> It still seems a bit strange that "SET LOCAL" is undone at function-exit,
> if the function has a matching SET-clause. But we need that for backwards-
> compatibility of the secure-search_path workaround, right?
Yeah, I'm afraid we backed ourselves into a corner on that one.
> So, to reiterate, my idea is
> .) Make "SET TRANSACTION" a synonym for "SET LOCAL" at the SQL-Level.
> .) In pl/pgsql, "SET TRANSACTION" sets a new value that is kept after the
> function exits, even if the function has a matching SET-clause.
> .) "SET LOCAL" in pl/pgsql set a new value that is kept if the function
> has no matching SET-clause. If it has one, the value is restored.
> In any case, we emit a warning that "SET LOCAL" is going away.
> .) One day, make "SET LOCAL" in pl/pgsql mean "local to the surrounding
> BEGIN/END block". Independent of any SET-clauses the function
> might or might not have.
I don't think it's a good idea to change SET LOCAL now and plan on
changing it again later ;-). If we really want BEGIN-block-local
SET capability, I'd prefer to think of some new keyword for that.
But I'm not convinced it's interesting --- given the proposed behavior
of function SET-clauses, attaching a SET to your function seems like
it'll cover the need for restoring outer values.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | FAST PostgreSQL | 2007-09-04 01:44:15 | Updatable cursor doubt |
Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-09-04 00:50:16 | Re: Per-function GUC settings: trickier than it looked |