Probably there is not big difference between RESET and UNDO in complexity of implementation. You have to do partial implementation of MVCC. No simple code.
I think so; yes; indeed.
Also note that user-defined GUCs already implements the transactional property, so probably the mecanism is already available and can be reused.
GUC are stack based - the value doesn't depends if transaction was successful or not.
So basically the use case needs GUCs with some access control. Or just role-private GUCs and some access function tricks would do as well for the use case. At least it is probably much easier to add privacy to gucs than to (re)implement permissions and MVCC on some session variables. And it would be nice if GUCs could be typed as well...
With respect, I don't share your opinion - it is not enough for usage like package variables - there usually should not to use any dependency on transactions.
More it is dynamic - it should be hard inconsistency to implement CREATE or DECLARE statement for GUC. So it is out my proposal (and my goal).