čt 7. 3. 2019 v 9:10 odesílatel Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> napsal:
> > Hello David, > > > This patch hasn't receive any review in a while and I'm not sure if > that's > > because nobody is interested or the reviewers think it does not need any > more > > review. > > > > It seems to me that this patch as implemented does not quite satisfy any > one. > > > > I think we need to hear something from the reviewers soon or I'll push > this > > patch to PG13 as Andres recommends [1]. > > I have discussed the feature extensively with Pavel on the initial thread. > > My strong opinion based on the underlying use case is that it that such > session variables should be transactional by default, and Pavel strong > opinion is that they should not, to be closer to Oracle comparable > feature. > > According to the documentation, the current implementation does provide a > transactional feature. However, it is not the default behavior, so I'm in > disagreement on a key feature, although I do really appreciate that Pavel > implemented the transactional behavior. > > Otherwise, ISTM that they could be named "SESSION VARIABLE" because the > variable only exists in memory, in a session, and we could thing of adding > other kind of variables later on. > > I do intend to review it in depth when it is transactional by default. > I am sorry. I cannot to support this request. Variables are not transactional. My opinion is strong in this part. I would not to repeat this discussion from start. I am sorry. Regards Pavel > Anyway, the patch is non trivial and very large, so targetting v12 now is > indeed out of reach. > > -- > Fabien. > >
