Re: proposal: session server side variables

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Subject: Re: proposal: session server side variables
Date: 2017-01-02 10:59:14
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.20.1701021148160.25242@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>> Yep, the variable value must be rolled back, I think.
>
> Attention! rollback is significantly expensive than RESET.

I'm quite unclear about the difference... Transactional for an unshared
only-in-memory session object is probably easy to implement, no WAL is
needed... So I do not see the difference.

> There are no any product where variables are transactional - we should not
> to create wheel.

Well, AFAICS PostgreSQL GUCs are transactional.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2017-01-02 11:42:24 Re: Replication/backup defaults
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2017-01-02 10:48:02 Re: proposal: session server side variables