> This patch hasn't receive any review in a while and I'm not sure if that's > because nobody is interested or the reviewers think it does not need any more > review. > > It seems to me that this patch as implemented does not quite satisfy any one. > > I think we need to hear something from the reviewers soon or I'll push this > patch to PG13 as Andres recommends [1].
I have discussed the feature extensively with Pavel on the initial thread.
My strong opinion based on the underlying use case is that it that such session variables should be transactional by default, and Pavel strong opinion is that they should not, to be closer to Oracle comparable feature.
According to the documentation, the current implementation does provide a transactional feature. However, it is not the default behavior, so I'm in disagreement on a key feature, although I do really appreciate that Pavel implemented the transactional behavior.
Otherwise, ISTM that they could be named "SESSION VARIABLE" because the variable only exists in memory, in a session, and we could thing of adding other kind of variables later on.
I do intend to review it in depth when it is transactional by default.
I am sorry. I cannot to support this request. Variables are not transactional. My opinion is strong in this part.
I would not to repeat this discussion from start. I am sorry.
Regards
Pavel
Anyway, the patch is non trivial and very large, so targetting v12 now is indeed out of reach.