Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 7 September 2017 at 11:31, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Haas' idea of some kind of syntactic extension, like "LET guc1 = x, >> guc2 = y FOR statement" seems more feasible to me. I'm not necessarily >> wedded to that particular syntax, but I think it has to look like >> a single-statement construct of some kind.
> Always happy to use a good idea... (any better way to re-locate that > discussion?) https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmobgd_uzrs44couty1odnbr0c_hjsxvx_dmrevz-cwu...@mail.gmail.com > Requires a new GUC mode for "statement local" rather than "transaction local" Yeah, something along that line. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers