On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
> 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?
Not sure, but I thought the use case was to set this at connection
startup time and then hand the connection off to a client. What keeps
the client from just issuing RESET?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
