>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> I doubt that we want to decorate every CREATE statement we've Tom> got with an optional MODULE clause; to name just one objection, Tom> it'd probably be impossible to do so without making MODULE a Tom> fully reserved word. Tom> What was discussed in the last go-round was some sort of Tom> state-dependent assignment of a module context. You could Tom> imagine either [snip] Tom> or something along the lines of Tom> SET current_module = modname; Tom> CREATE this; Tom> CREATE that; Tom> CREATE the_other; Tom> SET current_module = null; Tom> which is really more or less the same thing except that it makes Tom> the state concrete in the form of an examinable variable. In Tom> either case you'd need to define how the state would interact Tom> with transactions and errors. I like the SET version better. As for transactions and errors, I think that installing a module should be done inside a transaction anyway; and the usual GUC mechanisms should handle it if it was done using SET LOCAL, no? -- Andrew. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
