On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: > 2012/1/26 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: >> I'm wondering if a function would be a better fit than a GUC. I don't >> think you can really restrict the ability to revert a GUC change - >> i.e. if someone does a SET and then a RESET, you pretty much have to >> allow that. I think. But if you expose a function then it can work >> however you like. >> > One benefit to use GUC is that we can utilize existing mechanism to > revert a value set within a transaction block on error. > If we implement same functionality with functions, XactCallback allows > sepgsql to get control on appropriate timing?
Not sure, but I thought the use case was to set this at connection startup time and then hand the connection off to a client. What keeps the client from just issuing RESET? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
