From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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: | 2013-10-03 15:05:13 |
Message-ID: | 20131003150513.GD19661@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-30 22:19:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:40:51AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >> Shouldn't we do it for Set Constraints as well?
> > >
> > > Oh, very good point. I missed that one. Updated patch attached.
>
> I am glad you are seeing things I am not. :-)
>
> > 1. The function set_config also needs similar functionality, else
> > there will be inconsistency, the SQL statement will give error but
> > equivalent function set_config() will succeed.
> >
> > SQL Command
> > postgres=# set local search_path='public';
> > ERROR: SET LOCAL can only be used in transaction blocks
> >
> > Function
> > postgres=# select set_config('search_path', 'public', true);
> > set_config
> > ------------
> > public
> > (1 row)
>
> I looked at this but could not see how to easily pass the value of
> 'isTopLevel' down to the SELECT. All the other checks have isTopLevel
> passed down from the utility case statement.
Doesn't sound like a good idea to prohibit that anyway, it might
intentionally be used as part of a more complex statement where it only
should take effect during that single statement.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-10-03 15:12:33 | Re: record identical operator |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-10-03 15:04:28 | Re: record identical operator - Review |