From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: schema PL session variables |
Date: | 2016-02-10 19:04:39 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBeLmNpXR2RUtxOYZE2i33CLW9MH9CMCBuiqRhTVeK8fA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> I didn't propose SESSION variables - now there are some workarounds how
>> to anybody can emulate it, so this feature can wait. What we need is
>> safe session variables with limited access. And the border can be
>> defined by schema scope. So the keyword SCHEMA has sense, and it is
>> necessary.
>>
>
> BTW, if all that's desired here are session variables for plpgsql, I think
> it makes a lot more sense to start with implementing per-function session
> variables. That's a lot simpler design-wise and is something we should have
> anyway. You don't necessarily want session variables to be schema-level. (I
> realize the other PLs make them global, which is even worse, but that's no
> reason to continue that path.)
I am not able to implement SET and GET content in one function effectively.
I believe so static variables can be enough for 50%, but it is too limited.
Postgres cannot to pass and work with references, so this C design can be
too expensive.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
> Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
> Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-10 19:06:09 | Re: proposal: schema PL session variables |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-10 18:58:23 | Re: proposal: schema PL session variables |