Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL
Date
Msg-id 20121119150555.GB4196@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Amit Kapila escribió:

> The only point I can see against SET PERSISTENT is that other variants of
> SET command can be used in
> transaction blocks means for them ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT functionality works,
> but for SET PERSISTENT,
> it can't be done.
> So to handle that might be we need to mention this point in User Manual, so
> that users can be aware of this usage.
> If that is okay, then I think SET PERSISTENT is good to go.

I think that's okay.  There are other commands which have some forms
that can run inside a transaction block and others not.  CLUSTER is
one example (maybe the only one?  Not sure).

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER command reworks
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump --split patch