On 2021-Jul-17, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've concluded that we should just document them (and am working
> on that right now). It's certainly true that there is a use-case
> for reading them: libpq does "SHOW transaction_read_only", for
> example. And since we've gone to the trouble of making SET of one
> of these equivalent to SET TRANSACTION, we should probably just
> document that it is.
Maybe include "SET NAMES" while at it? It drove me crazy when I found
out that was accepted, last year.
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
