Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas Lockhart
Тема Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)
Дата
Msg-id 3CC34D0C.F24DA7E5@fourpalms.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hmm. In looking at SET, why couldn't we develop this as an extendable
capability a la pg_proc? If PostgreSQL knew how to link up the set
keyword with a call to a subroutine, then we could go ahead and call
that routine generically, right? Do the proposals on the table call for
this kind of implementation, or are they all "extra-tabular"?

We could make this extensible by defining a separate table, or by
defining a convention for pg_proc as we do under different circumstances
with type coersion.

The side effects of the calls would still need some protection to be
rolled back on transaction abort.

Comments?
                     - Thomas


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Lockhart
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: GUC vs variable.c (was Patches applied...)