yes, I'll do it.
But I'll remove some strange ideas.
Why?
I rather expect that you would comment that you find them strange and
argue why: there is no reason to "remove" a concept idea as such at least
early in a discussion process...
Why persistent variables?
Because *you* want persistent session variables... I did not invent it,
I just removed the "session" word and generalized the concept.
Sometimes one wants to store sets, sometimes one wants to only store
value.
Please, one argument. We have tables. What is wrong on tables?
Nothing is wrong as such. Cons arguments are: the syntax is verbose just
for one scalar, and the one-row property is currently not easily enforced
by pg, AFAIK.
Note that I'm not claiming that it should be implemented, but if some kind
of half-persistent variables are implemented, I think it should be
consistent with possibly fully-persistent variable as well, even if they
are not implemented immediately, or ever.
Anything what will be persistent will have similar performance like
tables.
Yes, sure. It is a different use case. Argue in the wiki!
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
