With respect, I don't share your opinion - it is not enough for usage like package variables - there usually should not to use any dependency on transactions.
I'm not sure I understand your point. If Oracle provides unsafe package variables that can fool auditors, it is not a sufficient reason for Pg to provide the same doubtful feature. And if they have sub-transactions then their feature may not necessarily be unsafe, at least if the coding is careful, but this point does not apply to pg.
More it is dynamic - it should be hard inconsistency to implement CREATE or DECLARE statement for GUC. So it is out my proposal (and my goal).
I have added a few questions/remarks about your updated proposal in the wiki. Feel free to update/answer/discuss these.
I have also updated and simplified the "simple session variable" description, because now I'm convinced that they must be transactional, and that a distinct declaration statement is a pain.
-- Fabien. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
