| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Statement-level rollback |
| Date: | 2019-01-31 12:38:27 |
| Message-ID: | 20190131123827.pflxwlxonv46vjs4@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-12-08 17:55:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-08, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > On 2018-12-08 17:10:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > This is what patch 0001 does -- it's only allowed in the connection
> > > string, or on ALTER USER / ALTER DATABASE. Setting it in
> > > postgresql.conf is forbidden, as well as changing from transaction to
> > > statement in SET (the opposite is allowed, though.)
> >
> > I don't think allowing to set it on a per-user basis is acceptable
> > either, it still leaves the client in a state where they'll potentially
> > be confused about it.
>
> Hmm, true.
>
> > Do you have a proposal to address the issue that this makes it just
> > about impossible to write UDFs in a safe way?
>
> Not yet, but I'll give it a think next week.
Is this still in development? Or should we mark this as returned with
feedback?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yugo Nagata | 2019-01-31 12:38:58 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-01-31 12:33:25 | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |