| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: session server side variables |
| Date: | 2017-02-06 20:53:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAOnk41q0cbtrDJeRWVvRiN-i+4KgXo28TVaqiJjc5-Jg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2017-02-06 21:36 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'll work on my proposal in v11 time. Maybe in this time Postgres will
>> support autonomous transactions.
>>
>
> Maybe.
>
> The variables syntax should be better integrated to core - it should be
>> implemented without getter/setter functions.
>>
>
> Yes, a nicer syntax would be great.
>
> Note that setter/getter could be useful for some use case, eg with queries
> built dynamically?
There is not any problem for usage in dynamic sql. Some generic access is
done already.
>
>
> I am not sure If statement SET can be enhanced to allows the work with
>> session variables without some conflicts, but we will see.
>>
>
> If so, maybe some kind of prefix could provide a workaround.
any other database objects has not prefix. But we can identify a ambiguous
situation and in this case we can require qualified identifier.
Regards
Pavel
>
>
> --
> Fabien.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-02-06 21:06:25 | Re: Active zombies at AIX |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2017-02-06 20:51:33 | Re: LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines |