Re: Per-function GUC settings: trickier than it looked

"Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> So, if I read you correctly, in summary we'd like to:

>  * make SET LOCAL local to the transaction (i.e., make it behave as documented),
>  * abandon the idea of a subtransaction-local SET, because the new
> function-local SET takes care of the interesting use-cases for that,
>  * somehow deal with the incompatibility with the 8.2 "security
> definer" workaround.

> Tom's proposal to handle the latter was that when a function-local SET
> reverts, it overrides any inner SET LOCALs.

> Am I on the right page?

Got it in one, I believe.
        regards, tom lane