Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>,Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-29 18:13:44
Message-ID: 20020429151038.Q15173-100000@mail1.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> > If we go with your syntax I would prefer SET LOCAL to LOCAL SET , so
> > that LOCAL feels tied more to variable rather than to SET .
>
> I agree.  I was originally thinking that that way might require LOCAL to
> become a reserved word, but we should be able to avoid it.
>
> With Thomas' nearby suggestion of SET SESSION ..., we'd have
>
> 	SET [ SESSION | LOCAL ] varname TO value
>
> and it only remains to argue which case is the default ;-)

Ah, I do like the syntax ... and would go with SESSION as default, but
that is based on me tinking about how 'local' variables work in perl,
where if you don't explicitly state its local, its automatically global
...




In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-04-29 18:19:14
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2002-04-29 18:10:13
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group