Re: SET LOCAL ROLE NO RESET -- sandbox transactions

From: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
To: Eric Hanson <eric(at)aquameta(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SET LOCAL ROLE NO RESET -- sandbox transactions
Date: 2019-03-27 16:23:41
Message-ID: 725a459b-e343-2c2e-8196-0e6f60e565d6@anastigmatix.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/27/19 2:40 AM, Eric Hanson wrote:

> What would be the implications of adding a NO RESET clause to SET LOCAL
> ROLE?

There's a part of this that seems to be a special case of the
GUC-protected-by-cookie idea discussed a bit in [1] and [2]
(which is still an idea that I like).

Regards,
-Chap

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/59127E4E.8090705%40anastigmatix.net

[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYOz%2BZmOteahrduJCc8RT8GEgC6PNXLwRzJPObmHGaurg%40mail.gmail.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chapman Flack 2019-03-27 16:35:22 Re: Fix XML handling with DOCTYPE
Previous Message Michael Banck 2019-03-27 16:01:21 Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums