yes, I'll do it.


But I'll remove some strange ideas.

Why?

I rather expect that you would comment that you find them strange and argue why: there is no reason to "remove" a concept idea as such at least early in a discussion process...

Why persistent variables?

Because *you* want persistent session variables... I did not invent it, I just removed the "session" word and generalized the concept.

Sometimes one wants to store sets, sometimes one wants to only store value.

Please, one argument. We have tables. What is wrong on tables?

Nothing is wrong as such. Cons arguments are: the syntax is verbose just for one scalar, and the one-row property is currently not easily enforced by pg, AFAIK.

Note that I'm not claiming that it should be implemented, but if some kind of half-persistent variables are implemented, I think it should be consistent with possibly fully-persistent variable as well, even if they are not implemented immediately, or ever.

Anything what will be persistent will have similar performance like tables.

Yes, sure. It is a different use case. Argue in the wiki!

--
Fabien.


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to