Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 7 September 2017 at 11:31, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Haas' idea of some kind of syntactic extension, like "LET guc1 = x,
>> guc2 = y FOR statement" seems more feasible to me. I'm not necessarily
>> wedded to that particular syntax, but I think it has to look like
>> a single-statement construct of some kind.
> Always happy to use a good idea... (any better way to re-locate that
> discussion?)
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobgD_UZRs44cOutY1odNbR0C_HJSxvx_dMREvz-CwuiaQ@mail.gmail.com
> Requires a new GUC mode for "statement local" rather than "transaction local"
Yeah, something along that line.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers