Hi,
On 2020-10-20 14:16:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Given that this is just SQL level, I don't see why we'd need a special
> > type of language here. You can just use DO etc.
>
> I'd make that point against the whole proposal. There's nothing here that
> can't be done with current_setting() + set_config(). I'm pretty dubious
> about layering extra functionality into such a fundamental utility command
> as SET; and the fact that we've gone twenty-odd years without similar
> previous proposals doesn't speak well for it being really useful.
From my POV it'd make sense to have SET support mirroring config file
syntax if we had it. And there've certainly been requests for
that...
The one case where I can see SET support being useful even without
config support is to allow for things like
ALTER DATABASE somedatabase SET search_path += 'myapp';
Greetings,
Andres Freund