| From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-09 08:19:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20020409101933.B15266@zf.jcu.cz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 01:03:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The search_path case is the main reason why I'm intent on changing
> the behavior of SET; without that, I'd just leave well enough alone.
Is there more variables like "search_path"? If not, I unsure if one
item is good consideration for change others things.
> Possibly some will suggest that search_path shouldn't be a SET variable
> because it needs to be able to be rolled back on error. But what else
> should it be? It's definitely per-session status, not persistent
It's good point. Why not make it more transparent? You want
encapsulate it to standard and current SET statement, but if it's
something different why not use for it different statement?
SET SESSION search_path TO 'something';
(...or something other)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Loftis | 2002-04-09 08:47:53 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Karel Zak | 2002-04-09 07:54:56 | Re: timeout implementation issues |