On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:45:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh, I like that idea. Keeps applications from having to think
> about this.
That's interesting, but I would be on the side of just generating an
error in this case thinking about potential future features like
global temporary tables, and because it could always be relaxed in the
future.
I am actually wondering if we don't have more problems with other
utility commands which spawn multiple transactions...
Any extra opinion?
--
Michael
