On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> But even if we can't make that work, it's not grounds for reserving >> PERSISTENT. Instead I'd be inclined to forget about "RESET PERSISTENT" >> syntax and use, say, SET PERSISTENT var_name TO DEFAULT to mean that. >> (BTW, I wonder what behavior that syntax has now in your patch.) > > In fact, rereading this, I wonder why you think "RESET PERSISTENT" > is a good idea even if there were no bison issues with it. We don't > write RESET LOCAL or RESET SESSION, so it seems asymmetric to have > RESET PERSISTENT.
I think this feature is more analagous to ALTER DATABASE .. SET or ALTER ROLE .. SET. Which is, incidentally, another reason I don't like SET PERSISTENT as a proposed syntax. But even if we stick with that syntax, it feels weird to have an SQL command to put a line into postgresql.conf.auto and no syntax to take it back out again. We wouldn't allow a CREATE command without a corresponding DROP operation... -- 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
