Re: SET LOCAL again

Bruce Momjian wrote:<br /><blockquote cite="mid200207301647.g6UGlkL16351@candle.pha.pa.us" type="cite"><pre
wrap="">TomLane wrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Peter Eisentraut <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:peter_e@gmx.net"><peter_e@gmx.net></a>writes:   </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Tom Lane
writes:
As an alternative syntax I can suggest     </pre> <pre wrap="">SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">Ugh.  Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
</pre></blockquote></blockquote><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">SET LOCAL is already used for something else in the
SQLstandard.  Not
 
sure if we'll ever implement that, but it's something to be concerned
about.     </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">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.   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
I don't like stuff trailing off at the end, especially three words. 
That SET command is getting so big, it may fall over.  ;-)
 </pre></blockquote> Perhaps ON COMMIT REVERT would be more intuitive.<br />