| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: session server side variables |
| Date: | 2017-01-04 16:30:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCTwEh4GO4HvFA9d8CmBBuoVzq0v3utqB+Ust1NZgV4cw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>> Um, what? No, not at all.
>>
>> GUCs are scoped, but not transactional, [...]
>>
>
> The documentation is very scarse, so I have tested it.
>
> All tests I have done with commit & rollback on session variables (SET
> SESSION) have shown a clean transactional behavior, with the value reverted
> on ROLLBACK, whether intentional or automatic, or the new value set on
> COMMIT. See attached scripts for instance.
>
Your test shows so SET SESSION has not transactional behaviour - the
transactions fails, but the value is not reverted to NULL.
It is good example of antipattern for this routine type :)
Pavel
>
>
> Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-01-04 16:30:27 | Re: proposal: session server side variables |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-01-04 16:19:38 | Re: proposal: session server side variables |