Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> ... So it's really a pretty poor fit. If we want to support >> general-purpose intrasession variables, I think something other than GUC >> ought to be providing 'em. (And, of course, it seems likely that you >> could provide such functionality with a few functions in >> your-favorite-PL, without any core changes at all.)
> I think I agree with you :-) > But then every PL needs to invent it's own variable persistence Why? You do it once, you can call it from SQL or any PL. Doing it in a PL would constrain you to using a function-like syntax whereas a core feature would have more flexibility of syntax, but I don't see that as a big advantage --- looking at GUC's history, we've added function-style APIs (current_setting() etc) when we already had specialized syntax. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match