| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Statement-level rollback |
| Date: | 2018-12-08 20:31:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20181208203104.chthyjvkf5mu3u7l@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-12-08 17:10:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-07, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > I think it could partially be addressed by not allowing to set it on the
> > commandline, server config, etc. So the user would have to set it on a
> > per-connection basis, potentially via the connection string.
>
> This is what patch 0001 does -- it's only allowed in the connection
> string, or on ALTER USER / ALTER DATABASE. Setting it in
> postgresql.conf is forbidden, as well as changing from transaction to
> statement in SET (the opposite is allowed, though.)
I don't think allowing to set it on a per-user basis is acceptable
either, it still leaves the client in a state where they'll potentially
be confused about it.
Do you have a proposal to address the issue that this makes it just
about impossible to write UDFs in a safe way?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-12-08 20:55:03 | Re: Statement-level rollback |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-12-08 20:10:27 | Re: Statement-level rollback |