Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II
Date: 2003-06-10 21:38:13
Message-ID: 5515.1055281093@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> So are we eliminating the autocommit GUC entirely, or just from
> postgresql.conf?

Entirely --- putting it on the server side was a bad mistake, in
hindsight. The functionality is better provided on the client side.

(The GUC var does still physically exist, but that's only so that
commands like "SET AUTOCOMMIT TO ON" will be accepted from 7.3-vintage
clients. If you try "SET AUTOCOMMIT TO OFF" you'll get an error.
I'm unsure whether this needs to be in the documentation at all,
but it definitely doesn't need to be in postgresql.conf.sample.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2003-06-10 21:39:48 Re: Proposal to Re-Order Postgresql.Conf, part II
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-06-10 21:35:04 Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Postgresql & AMD x86-64