On 9/5/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> > Am I on the right page?
>
> Got it in one, I believe.
In that case, +1 for your proposed changes.
At first, like Florian, I found the idea of a SET LOCAL ever
persisting beyond a function astonishing, but that's because I was
approaching the term LOCAL from a programming frame of mind, not an
SQL one. Once you appreciate that LOCAL means local to the
transaction, rather than local to the programming context, it all
makes sense.
Cheers,
BJ