Re: [HACKERS] SET LOCAL again

[Thomas Swan]

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Tom Lane wrote:
  

Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
    

Tom Lane writes:
As an alternative syntax I can suggest
      
SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
      

Ugh.  Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
        

SET LOCAL is already used for something else in the SQL standard.  Not
sure if we'll ever implement that, but it's something to be concerned
about.
      

Actually, it looks to me like the spec's SET LOCAL has a compatible
interpretation: it only affects the current transaction.

My main gripe with "ON COMMIT RESET" is that it's a misleading
description of what will happen --- RESETting a variable is quite
different from allowing it to revert to the pre-transaction state.
    

I don't like stuff trailing off at the end, especially three words. 
That SET command is getting so big, it may fall over.  ;-)

  

Perhaps ON COMMIT REVERT would be more intuitive.