Re: Modernizing our GUC infrastructure

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Modernizing our GUC infrastructure
Date: 2022-09-06 05:42:53
Message-ID: 3049613.1662442973@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> út 6. 9. 2022 v 6:32 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> napsal:
>> 1. Session variables can be persistent - so the usage of session variables
>> can be checked by static analyze like plpgsql_check

> more precious - metadata of session variables are persistent

Right ... so the question is, is that a feature or a bug?

I think there's a good analogy here to temporary tables. The SQL
spec says that temp-table schemas are persistent and database-wide,
but what we actually have is that they are session-local. People
occasionally propose that we implement the SQL semantics for that,
but in the last twenty-plus years no one has bothered to write a
committable patch to support it ... much less remove the existing
behavior in favor of that, which I'm pretty sure no one would think
is a good idea.

So, is it actually a good idea to have persistent metadata for
session variables? I'd say that the issue is at best debatable,
and at worst proven wrong by a couple of decades of experience.
In what way are session variables less mutable than temp tables?

Still, this discussion would be better placed on the other thread.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2022-09-06 05:44:13 Re: [PATCH] Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-09-06 05:25:14 Re: Modernizing our GUC infrastructure