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 transactional. 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. Regards Pavel > > > -- > Fabien. >
