Re: RESET command seems pretty disjointed now

On 4/17/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Florian Pflug <fgp(dot)phlo(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> The current documentation for RESET exhibits a certain lack of, um,
> >>> intellectual cohesiveness:
>
> > What about
> > RESET parameter
> > RESET { PLANS | TEMP | TEMPORARY }
> > RESET ALL { PARAMETERS | STATE }
>
> > RESET ALL would become an abbreviation of RESET ALL PARAMETERS (for backwards
> > compatibility), while RESET SESSION would be renamed to RESET ALL STATE.
>
> This doesn't do anything to address the lack of coherence. It's not
> only that backward compatibility forces us to break the clear meaning of
> ALL; another problem is that we break the symmetry between SET, RESET,
> and SHOW. If you can RESET SESSION, what does it mean to SET SESSION?
> Or SHOW SESSION?
>
> Given the precedent that RESET ALL only resets GUC variables, I think
> it's probably best if we just say that RESET only affects GUC variables,
> period. The new functionality should go by another name entirely.
> I'm not wedded to DISCARD by any means, but I do not believe that
> changing some words after RESET is going to fix my complaint.

Can't argue with that. Also I don't have better proposals.
If DISCARD is the final word, I start to prepare a patch.

--
marko