On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 04:45:19AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> st 3. 11. 2021 v 14:05 odesílatel Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> napsal:
> > 1) Not sure why we need to call this "schema variables". Most objects
> > are placed in a schema, and we don't say "schema tables" for example.
> > And it's CREATE VARIABLE and not CREATE SCHEMA VARIABLE, so it's a bit
> > inconsistent.
+1
At least the error messages need to be consistent.
It doesn't make sense to have both of these:
+ elog(ERROR, "cache lookup failed for schema variable %u", varid);
+ elog(ERROR, "cache lookup failed for variable %u", varid);
> Yes, there is inconsistency, but I think it is necessary. The name
> "variable" is too generic. Theoretically we can use other adjectives like
> session variables or global variables and the name will be valid. But it
> doesn't describe the fundamentals of design. This is similar to the
> package's variables from PL/SQL. These variables are global, session's
> variables too. But the usual name is "package variables". So schema
> variables are assigned to schemes, and I think a good name can be "schema
> variables". But it is not necessary to repeat keyword schema in the CREATE
> COMMAND.
>
> My opinion is not too strong in this case, and I can accept just
> "variables" or "session's variables" or "global variables", but I am not
> sure if these names describe this feature well, because still they are too
> generic. There are too many different implementations of session global
> variables (see PL/SQL or T-SQL or DB2).
I would prefer "session variable".
To me, this feature seems similar to a CTE (which exists for a single
statement), or a temporary table (which exists for a single transaction). So
"session" conveys a lot more of its meaning than "schema".
But don't rename everything just for me...
--
Justin