| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Dimitri Fontaine' <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, cedric(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Greg Smith' <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 'Josh Berkus' <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 'Magnus Hagander' <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 'Christopher Browne' <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
| Date: | 2012-11-19 15:05:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20121119150555.GB4196@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-11-19 15:16:39 | Re: pg_dump --split patch |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-11-19 14:58:10 | Re: ALTER command reworks |