| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-10 14:13:51 |
| Message-ID: | 3785.1018448031@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> I do have a concern about how to implement some of the SET commands if
> we *do* respect transactional semantics. For example, SET TIME ZONE
> saves the current value of an environment variable (if available), and
> would need *at least* a "before transaction" and "after transaction
> started" pair of values.
I intended for guc.c to manage this bookkeeping, thus freeing individual
modules from worrying about it. That would require us to transpose the
last few special-cased SET variables into generic GUC variables, but
I consider that a Good Thing anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-10 14:19:26 | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
| Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2002-04-10 14:08:23 | A "New Release" list of places to contact about new releases of PostgreSQL |