2012/1/26 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> I'm wondering if a function would be a better fit than a GUC. I don't
> think you can really restrict the ability to revert a GUC change -
> i.e. if someone does a SET and then a RESET, you pretty much have to
> allow that. I think. But if you expose a function then it can work
> however you like.
>
One benefit to use GUC is that we can utilize existing mechanism to
revert a value set within a transaction block on error.
If we implement same functionality with functions, XactCallback allows
sepgsql to get control on appropriate timing?
> On another note, this is an awfully large patch. Is there a separate
> patch here that just does code rearrangement that should be separated
> out?
>
OK. I moved some routines related to client_label into label.c.
I'll separate this part from the new functionality part.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>