2017-01-04 9:56 GMT+01:00 Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr>:

> With respect, I don't share your opinion  - it is not enough for usage like
>> package variables - there usually should not to use any dependency on
>> transactions.
> I'm not sure I understand your point. If Oracle provides unsafe package
> variables that can fool auditors, it is not a sufficient reason for Pg to
> provide the same doubtful feature. And if they have sub-transactions then
> their feature may not necessarily be unsafe, at least if the coding is
> careful, but this point does not apply to pg.

unsafe is wrong word - are you first man, what I know who are expecting
transactions from variables - the variables are coming from procedural
world - there are not transactions.

your mental model about variables is pretty artificial - it is strange so
Oracle, MSSQL, DB2 30 years didn't find so variables should be

I agree, so there can be some advantages - but I disagree so transactional
is major and required feature. There are possible artefacts on border
transactional and untransactional world - so developer should to use
patterns that reduces negative impacts of these artefacts.

> More it is dynamic - it should be hard inconsistency to implement CREATE or
>> DECLARE statement for GUC. So it is out my proposal (and my goal).
> I have added a few questions/remarks about your updated proposal in the
> wiki. Feel free to update/answer/discuss these.
> I have also updated and simplified the "simple session variable"
> description, because now I'm convinced that they must be transactional, and
> that a distinct declaration statement is a pain.

I respect your opinion and don't agree with it.



> --
> Fabien.

Reply via email to