Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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