Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> It's weird that SET LOCAL and SET SESSION actually *set* the value, and
>> the second key word determines how long the setting will last. SET
>> PERSISTENT doesn't actually set the value. I predict that this will be
>> a new favorite help-it-doesn't-work FAQ.
> I think this is another argument against this particular syntax. I
> have always thought that something along the lines of ALTER SYSTEM
> would be more appropriate. ALTER DATABASE .. SET and ALTER ROLE ..
> SET don't change the value immediately either, and nobody gets
> confused about that to my knowledge. But I can see where SET
> PERSISTENT could cause that sort of confusion.
Yeah, I think I argued for using the SET syntax to start with, but
I'm coming around to the position that SET PERSISTENT is too much
unlike the behavior of other varieties of SET. ALTER is sounding
more attractive to me now. Not sure about "ALTER SYSTEM" in particular
though --- it's not clear that that has any real merit other than
already existing as a keyword. (Not that that's negligible.)
ALTER CONFIGURATION is another alternative using an existing keyword
that might be worth considering.
regards, tom lane