Re: Statement-level rollback

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have a hard time arguing against that given that EDB has this thing
> in our bag of tricks, but if it weren't for that I'd be fighting
> against this tooth and nail. Behavior-changing GUCs suuuuck.

Uh, we're not seriously considering a GUC that changes transactional
behavior are we? I thought we learned our lesson about that from the
autocommit fiasco. I'm not quite going to say "that'll go in over my
dead body", but I *urgently* recommend finding a less fragile way
to do it.

In a quick look at the patch, it seems that it has a BEGIN/START
TRANSACTION option, which perhaps would do for the "less fragile"
way; the problem is that it's also adding a GUC. Maybe we could
make the GUC read-only, so that it's only a reporting mechanism
not a twiddlable knob? (BTW, if it's not GUC_REPORT, you are
missing a large bet; that would at least make it *possible* for
clients to not be broken by this, even if it would still be an
unreasonable amount of work for them to cope with it.)

regards, tom lane