| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |