Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane writes:
As an alternative syntax I can suggest
SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
Ugh. Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> > As an alternative syntax I can suggest
> >>
> > SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
> >>
> >> Ugh. Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
>
> > SET LOCAL is already used for something else in the SQL standar
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
> As an alternative syntax I can suggest
>>
> SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
>>
>> Ugh. Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
> SET LOCAL is already used for something else in the SQL standard. Not
> sure if we'll ever imple
Tom Lane writes:
> > As an alternative syntax I can suggest
>
> > SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
>
> Ugh. Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
SET LOCAL is already used for something else in the SQL standard. Not
sure if we'll ever implement that, but it's something to be concerned
about
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As an alternative syntax I can suggest
> SET name TO value [ ON COMMIT RESET ];
Ugh. Why can't we stick with SET LOCAL?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have
