In my proposal was support for transaction scope - ON COMMIT RESET clause should be ok
Could you update the wiki, both the proposal and the use-case implementation, to reflect this point?
Moreover, is there any actual use-case for non-transactional secure half-persistent session variables? AFAICS the "secure" part implies both permissions and transactional for the presented security-related use case. If there is no use case for these combined features, then ISTM that you should update to proposal so that the variables are always transactional, which is both simpler, more consistent, and I think more acceptable.
If you are transaction sensitive, then you have to be sensitive to subtransactions - then the work is much more complex.
Maybe, probably, I do not really know. For now, I'm trying to determine how the proposals fits Craig's use case.
The current status is that both proposals are useless because the use case needs "some" transactional property for security. But probably some improvements are possible.
Is there use case, when you would to play with transactions and variables and RESET is not enough?
I do not know. If you explain more clearly what is meant by a "RESET" on a variable when the transaction fails, then maybe I can have an opinion. Currently I'm just guessing in the dark the precise intended semantics.
reset can means "set to default"
Now when I though about it - this scenario is not interesting for PL - probably can be interesting for some interactive work. In PL you can handle transactions - so you know if was or was not any exceptions. And if you didn't handle the exception, then you are in "need rollback state", so you cannot to anything - look on variable value too. In PL is usually important transaction start - difficult question if it can means subtransaction start too.
