From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: session server side variables |
Date: | 2017-01-04 08:56:41 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1701040934520.22281@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> With respect, I don't share your opinion - it is not enough for usage like
> package variables - there usually should not to use any dependency on
> transactions.
I'm not sure I understand your point. If Oracle provides unsafe package
variables that can fool auditors, it is not a sufficient reason for Pg to
provide the same doubtful feature. And if they have sub-transactions then
their feature may not necessarily be unsafe, at least if the coding is
careful, but this point does not apply to pg.
> More it is dynamic - it should be hard inconsistency to implement CREATE or
> DECLARE statement for GUC. So it is out my proposal (and my goal).
I have added a few questions/remarks about your updated proposal in the
wiki. Feel free to update/answer/discuss these.
I have also updated and simplified the "simple session variable"
description, because now I'm convinced that they must be transactional,
and that a distinct declaration statement is a pain.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Borodin | 2017-01-04 09:27:51 | Re: background sessions |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-01-04 08:25:09 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |