Re: proposal: session server side variables

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: session server side variables
Date: 2016-11-25 16:24:37
Message-ID: CAMsr+YF0G8_FehQyFS8gSfnEer9OPsMOvpfniDJOVGQzJzHzsw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 14 October 2016 at 23:09, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>> but only within the session, right? You're not proposing some kind of
>> inter-backend IPC where one backend sets a session var and another
>> backend accesses it and sees the value set by the first session?
>
> In this moment I propose only local (not shared variables). I hope so access
> can be safe with IMMUTABLE access function.

OK, good. Though I suspect you'll have a hard time with IMMUTABLE
functions and need STABLE.

I don't think it's correct to claim that these vars are immutable,
since that'd allow users to do silly things like build them into index
expressions. Splat.

> Default access function should VOLATILE PARALLEL UNSAFE - but immutable sets
> can be defined and used (and I see a sense of these function, because with
> these function the variables are accessed in query planning time).

I don't really understand the purpose of an immutable variable. It
seems inherently contradictory.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-11-25 17:10:34 Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2016-11-25 16:22:45 Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after