On 27/10/2025 17:23, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> This was briefly mentioned upthread, but I'm a little concerned that this
> doesn't respond to commands like SET TRANSACTION READ ONLY. I wonder if we
> should mark transaction_read_only as GUC_REPORT and use that instead. FWIW
> I see that we marked search_path as GUC_REPORT somewhat recently (see
> commit 28a1121).
You're right, it doesn't. I like the idea, but I'm not sure how to
integrate a transaction-scoped variable into this feature. Would that
mean we also need to change the reset mechanism for GUC_REPORT variables
when the transaction ends?
Best, Jim
