Re: Use of LOCAL in SET command

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use of LOCAL in SET command
Date: 2002-06-24 20:37:50
Message-ID: 21088.1024951070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Sorry to nag about this so late, but I fear that the new command SET LOCAL
> will cause some confusion later on.

Okay...

> SQL uses LOCAL to mean the local node in a distributed system (SET LOCAL
> TRANSACTION ...) and the current session as opposed to all sessions (local
> temporary table). The new SET LOCAL command adds the meaning "this
> transaction only". Instead we could simply use SET TRANSACTION, which
> would be consistent in behaviour with the SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL
> command.

Hmm ... this would mean that the implicit parsing of SET TRANSACTION
ISOLATION LEVEL would change (instead of SET / TRANSACTION ISOLATION
LEVEL you'd now tend to read it as SET TRANSACTION / ISOLATION LEVEL)
but I guess that would still not create any parse conflicts. I'm okay
with this as long as we can fix psql's command completion stuff to
handle it intelligently. I hadn't gotten round to looking at that point
yet for the LOCAL case; do you have any thoughts?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-06-24 20:43:31 Re: SQL99, CREATE CAST, and initdb
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-06-24 20:22:12 Nonrecursive ALTER TABLE ADD/RENAME COLUMN is wrong