> 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.
I'm not sure I understand your point. If Oracle provides unsafe package
variables that can fool auditors, it is not a sufficient reason for Pg to
provide the same doubtful feature. And if they have sub-transactions then
their feature may not necessarily be unsafe, at least if the coding is
careful, but this point does not apply to pg.
> 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).
I have added a few questions/remarks about your updated proposal in the
wiki. Feel free to update/answer/discuss these.
I have also updated and simplified the "simple session variable"
description, because now I'm convinced that they must be transactional,
and that a distinct declaration statement is a pain.
--
Fabien.
