Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: 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 17:04:52
Message-ID: 29718.1020099892@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 ;-)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-29 17:09:52 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-29 16:51:07 Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction