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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Suggestion: Issue warning when calling SET TRANSACTION outside transaction block
Date: 2013-11-19 16:37:25
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYVHWq3Bdd-+X=BiSBgHQMkNE6krLWZvQ8ibXaQzRhrQw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, ERROR is what LOCK returns, so if we change SET TRANSACTION to be
> WARNING, we should change LOCK too, so on backward-compatibility
> grounds, ERROR makes more sense.
>
> Personally, I am fine with changing them all to WARNING.

I don't think it's worth breaking backward compatibility. I'm not
entirely sure what I would have decided here in a vacuum, but at this
point existing precedent seems determinative.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-11-19 16:38:24 Re: Review: pre-commit triggers
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-11-19 16:29:58 Re: More legacy code: pg_ctl