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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2012-11-19 15:16:39|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump --split patch|
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2012-11-19 14:58:10|
|Subject: Re: ALTER command reworks|