Attention! rollback is significantly expensive than RESET.
I'm quite unclear about the difference... Transactional for an unshared
only-in-memory session object is probably easy to implement, no WAL is
needed... So I do not see the difference
you have to store previous value
This does not fully answer my question.
Maybe RESET would put NULL instead of the previous value in a rollback?
If so, I must admit that I do not see any fundamental issue with holding
temporarily the initial value of an in-memory session variables so as to
be able to rool it back if required...
There are no any product where variables are transactional - we should
not to create wheel.
Well, AFAICS PostgreSQL GUCs are transactional.
that is exception ..
That is just logic: if you make an argument based on "it does not exist",
then the argument is void if someone produces a counter example.
show me some transactiinal variables from msql, oracle, db2
I do not really know these three particular products. All I can say is
that from a semantical point of view the contents of any one-row temporary
relation is somehow a transactional session variable. However I do not
know whether the 3 cited products have temporary tables, this is just a
guess.
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
