Re: SET LOCAL again

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SET LOCAL again
Date: 2002-07-30 16:38:28
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0207301834330.24511-100000@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> > As an alternative syntax I can suggest
>
> > SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
>
> Ugh. Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?

SET LOCAL is already used for something else in the SQL standard. Not
sure if we'll ever implement that, but it's something to be concerned
about.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-07-30 16:39:06 Re: What exactly does lanispl mean?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-07-30 16:38:14 Re: What exactly does lanispl mean?