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: 2017-01-04 08:56:41
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.20.1701040934520.22281@lancre
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> With respect, I don't share your opinion - it is not enough for usage like
> package variables - there usually should not to use any dependency on
> transactions.

I'm not sure I understand your point. If Oracle provides unsafe package
variables that can fool auditors, it is not a sufficient reason for Pg to
provide the same doubtful feature. And if they have sub-transactions then
their feature may not necessarily be unsafe, at least if the coding is
careful, but this point does not apply to pg.

> More it is dynamic - it should be hard inconsistency to implement CREATE or
> DECLARE statement for GUC. So it is out my proposal (and my goal).

I have added a few questions/remarks about your updated proposal in the
wiki. Feel free to update/answer/discuss these.

I have also updated and simplified the "simple session variable"
description, because now I'm convinced that they must be transactional,
and that a distinct declaration statement is a pain.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Borodin 2017-01-04 09:27:51 Re: background sessions
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2017-01-04 08:25:09 Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal