| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Morten Hustveit <morten(at)eventures(dot)vc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block |
| Date: | 2013-11-09 19:15:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoawha6CDAbyyzz2sJPJ4yReh+OVfSa8710GYMGNWeuVOg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> [ I'm so far behind ... ]
>
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Applied. Thank you for all your suggestions.
>
> I thought the suggestion had been to issue a *warning*. How did that
> become an error? This patch seems likely to break applications that
> may have just been harmlessly sloppy about when they were issuing
> SETs and/or what flavor of SET they use. We don't for example throw
> an error for START TRANSACTION with an open transaction or COMMIT or
> ROLLBACK without one --- how can it possibly be argued that these
> operations are more dangerous than those cases?
>
> I'd personally have voted for using NOTICE.
Well, LOCK TABLE throws an error, so it's not without precedent.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2013-11-09 20:46:56 | Re: UTF8 national character data type support WIP patch and list of open issues. |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-11-09 17:40:29 | Re: Race condition in b-tree page deletion |