Re: Per-function GUC settings: trickier than it looked

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: 2007-09-03 16:43:00
Message-ID: 12914.1188837780@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:
> At least for me, the least surprising behaviour would be to
> revert it too. Than the rule becomes "a function is always
> executed in a pseudo-subtransaction that affects only GUCs"

Only if it has at least one SET clause. The overhead is too high
to insist on this for every function call.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Trevor Talbot 2007-09-03 17:02:50 Re: tsearch filenames unlikes special symbols and numbers
Previous Message Florian G. Pflug 2007-09-03 15:38:54 Re: Per-function GUC settings: trickier than it looked