On 2/10/16 1:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2016-02-10 20:10 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com <mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com>>: On 2/10/16 1:04 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: BTW, if all that's desired here are session variables for plpgsql, I think it makes a lot more sense to start with implementing per-function session variables. That's a lot simpler design-wise and is something we should have anyway. You don't necessarily want
It is too simple and too like workaround :) I can do it this in plpgsql extension probably.
I think it's something people will definitely want. If we don't have it, then they're going to be using schema variables as a work-around because they can't do a private static variable inside a single function.
Most importantly, since this effects only plpgsql and only individual functions, the design is simple and should be easy to commit in 9.6. I don't have the same confidence with schema variables. My target is not 9.6 - next commitfest will be full - finishing multi CPU queries, logical replication, .. and I have still three opened patches. But if we find a agreement in this spring, I can implement it in summer, and it can be in upstream in early 9.7 commitfest. I know, this topic is difficult, so have to start it now.
Sure. I think it would be useful to have a wiki page with info as it gets ironed out. A good starting point would be use cases. One that I don't think has been considered is different extensions adding/using different schema variables. Questions like should extension A have direct access to variables for extension B.
-- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers