2012/1/26 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > I'm wondering if a function would be a better fit than a GUC. I don't > think you can really restrict the ability to revert a GUC change - > i.e. if someone does a SET and then a RESET, you pretty much have to > allow that. I think. But if you expose a function then it can work > however you like. > One benefit to use GUC is that we can utilize existing mechanism to revert a value set within a transaction block on error. If we implement same functionality with functions, XactCallback allows sepgsql to get control on appropriate timing?
> On another note, this is an awfully large patch. Is there a separate > patch here that just does code rearrangement that should be separated > out? > OK. I moved some routines related to client_label into label.c. I'll separate this part from the new functionality part. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers