Re: [HACKERS] Use of LOCAL in SET command

2002-08-26 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Has this been resolved? I think the resolution was to do nothing. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/

Re: [HACKERS] Use of LOCAL in SET command

2002-08-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Has this been resolved? --- Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sorry to nag about this so late, but I fear that the new command SET LOCAL > > will cause some confusion later on. > > Okay...

Re: [HACKERS] Use of LOCAL in SET command

2002-06-24 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sorry to nag about this so late, but I fear that the new command SET LOCAL > will cause some confusion later on. Okay... > SQL uses LOCAL to mean the local node in a distributed system (SET LOCAL > TRANSACTION ...) and the current session as opposed

Re: [HACKERS] Use of LOCAL in SET command

2002-06-24 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> SQL uses LOCAL to mean the local node in a distributed system (SET LOCAL > TRANSACTION ...) and the current session as opposed to all sessions (local > temporary table). The new SET LOCAL command adds the meaning "this > transaction only". Instead we could simply use SET TRANSACTION, which > w