Re: SET LOCAL again

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> > As an alternative syntax I can suggest
> >> 
> > SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
> >> 
> >> Ugh.  Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
> 
> > SET LOCAL is already used for something else in the SQL standard.  Not
> > sure if we'll ever implement that, but it's something to be concerned
> > about.
> 
> Actually, it looks to me like the spec's SET LOCAL has a compatible
> interpretation: it only affects the current transaction.
> 
> My main gripe with "ON COMMIT RESET" is that it's a misleading
> description of what will happen --- RESETting a variable is quite
> different from allowing it to revert to the pre-transaction state.

I don't like stuff trailing off at the end, especially three words. 
That SET command is getting so big, it may fall over.  ;-)

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026