Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.20.1612281335360.4911@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables
(Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Craig, > Fabien, I don't really see the point of "persistent variables". What > benefit do they add over relations? A relation is a set of values, a variable is a scalar with one value. It is always possible to declare a set and use it as a singleton, but somehow it seems cleaner to ask for what you want and have the database maintain the singleton property just like any other constraint. Behind the scene a "persistent variable" would probably be implemented as a row in a special table or some kind of one-row table... So there is no deep semantical difference, but mostly a syntactic one: you ask for a variable and you use it as a variable, i.e. there can be a simple well integrated syntax to get its value without having to "SELECT FROM" or resorting to functions. > You can add a simple function to fetch a tuple if you want it not to > look like a subquery. ISTM that if there are some kind of (persistent/session/...) variables, there should be a simple direct way of getting its value, like @var or &var or whatever. If one must write pg_get_variable_value('var')::ZZZ, it somehow defeats the purpose, as "(SELECT var FROM some_table)" is shorter. > I do see value to two different things discussed here: > > * Pavel's proposal for persistent-declaration, non-persistent-value > session variables with access control. [...] Yep, that is one. I missed the half-persistence property at the beginning... > * Fabien's earlier mention of transient session / query variables, a-la > [...] I think it's a very separate topic to this and should be dealt > with in a separate thread if/when someone wants to work on them. Yes and no: ISTM that at least a global design should be discussed *before* some kind of special-case variables (session-alive, persistent-in-existence-but-not-in-value, not-transactional, subject-to-permissions, not-subject-to-constraints...) are introduced, so that the special case does not preclude the possible future existence of other types of variables. Then I would be more at ease with having a special case implemented first, knowing that others may come and fit neatly, both semantically and syntaxically. I'm bothered by the half-persistence proposed, because it interferes both with possible session (light-weight, only in memory) and persistent (heavy-weight, in catalog) variables. Also, I'm not yet convinced that simple privatizable transcient/session variables would not be enough to fit the use case, so that for the same price there would be session variables for all, not only special ones with permissions. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: