Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Craig Ringer
Subject Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables
Date
Msg-id CAMsr+YHZWVi6XQTy3Lu4RZLjJ0FjxuYzYe72qBBkHYt-COgb+A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] proposal: session server side variables  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view


On 1 Jan. 2017 20:03, "Fabien COELHO" <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:


What if setup_user() succeeds as a function but the transaction it belongs to fails for some reason (eg deferred constraints, other operation related to setting user up but outside of this function fails, there is replication issue... whatever, a transaction may fail by definition)?

ISTM that the security models requires that USER_IS_AUDITOR is reverted, so although it is definitely a session variable, it must be transactional (MVCC) nevertheless.

No strong opinion here.

IMO the simplest answer should be the main focus here: if it's session level, it's session level. Not kinda-sesion-level kinda-transaction-level.

I can see occasional uses for what you describe though. If we landed up with an xact scope option like we have for SET LOCAL GUCs, the option to mark it ON COMMIT RESET or ON COMMIT SET would be useful I guess. I'm not sure if it's worth the complexity.

I guess defaulting to rolling back variable effects on xact rollback would be ok too. Just kind of limiting.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash