On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:21 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Monday, November 19, 2012 9:07 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:36 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Amit Kapila escribió:
> > > The only point I can see against SET PERSISTENT is that other
> > of
> > > SET command can be used in
> > > transaction blocks means for them ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT
> > 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).
> If no objections to SET PERSISTENT .. syntax, I shall update the patch for
> implementation of same.
Patch to implement SET PERSISTENT command is attached with this mail.
Now it can be reviewed.
I have not update docs, as I want feedback about the behaviour of implementation, so that docs can be updated appropriately.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2012-11-22 13:03:27|
|Subject: Re: auto_explain WAS: RFC: Timing Events|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2012-11-22 12:36:46|
|Subject: Re: WIP json generation enhancements|