| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SET autocommit begins transaction? |
| Date: | 2002-09-18 22:20:02 |
| Message-ID: | 200209182220.g8IMK3h02779@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > Why exactly did you want the initial SET to not be part of the
> > transaction?
>
> Is having an exception all that bad? What other tunables should be
> outside of the reach of transactions? Maybe an exception should be
> applied to a class of SET tunables. -sc
I am fine with exceptions _if_ we force them to start a transaction,
meaning they are their own transactions basically.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2002-09-18 22:22:34 | Re: SET autocommit begins transaction? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-18 22:19:43 | Re: SET autocommit begins transaction? |