On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 13:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > I would say that a GUC variable for such behavior as listed in the TODO
> > is overzealous. We should either enforce it, or not. As we do not now,
> > there is no reason imo to change it.
>
> Not only is it overzealous, but the proposal to have one reflects a
> failure to learn from history. GUC variables that change
> transaction-boundary semantics are a bad idea, period: see autocommit.
Nod. Let's get this TODO removed.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
