Re: Use of LOCAL in SET command - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Use of LOCAL in SET command
Date
Msg-id 21088.1024951070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Use of LOCAL in SET command  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Use of LOCAL in SET command
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Sorry to nag about this so late, but I fear that the new command SET LOCAL
> will cause some confusion later on.

Okay...

> SQL uses LOCAL to mean the local node in a distributed system (SET LOCAL
> TRANSACTION ...) and the current session as opposed to all sessions (local
> temporary table).  The new SET LOCAL command adds the meaning "this
> transaction only".  Instead we could simply use SET TRANSACTION, which
> would be consistent in behaviour with the SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL
> command.

Hmm ... this would mean that the implicit parsing of SET TRANSACTION
ISOLATION LEVEL would change (instead of SET / TRANSACTION ISOLATION
LEVEL you'd now tend to read it as SET TRANSACTION / ISOLATION LEVEL)
but I guess that would still not create any parse conflicts.  I'm okay
with this as long as we can fix psql's command completion stuff to
handle it intelligently.  I hadn't gotten round to looking at that point
yet for the LOCAL case; do you have any thoughts?
        regards, tom lane




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_restore: [archiver] input file does not appear to be a valid archive
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL99, CREATE CAST, and initdb