|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2018-12-08 17:55:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-08, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-12-08 17:10:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > 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.
> Hmm, true.
> > Do you have a proposal to address the issue that this makes it just
> > about impossible to write UDFs in a safe way?
> Not yet, but I'll give it a think next week.
Is this still in development? Or should we mark this as returned with
|Next Message||Yugo Nagata||2019-01-31 12:38:58||Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance|
|Previous Message||Amit Kapila||2019-01-31 12:33:25||Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables|