> [...] It is on critical path, so every check increase computer time for
> transaction end.
Hmmm... Everything executed is on the critical path...
>> It is a very good thing that GUCs are transactional, and this should not
>> be changed, it is a useful feature! Much more useful than non transactional.
>
> Personally, I never used - although I using often nesting
Your position is contradictory:
First you put forward a variable-with-permissions for a special use case,
you insist that correctness is key and must be checked with static
analysis tools that audit codes, that dynamic variables are too ugly for
the purpose. Fine, even if I disagree with some details, there is some
logic in that: security, audit, checks... why not.
Then when one shows that correctness requires that the variable is
transactional, this is not so important anymore based on the fact that
some big companies do not do it like that, and suddenly it is enough that
it probably works sometimes. And when the fact that pg already supports
transactional variables is pointed out, just what the use case needs...
then you suggest to remove the property.
What can I say? You've lost me, really.
--
Fabien.
