| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Explain Analyze (Rollback off) Suggestion |
| Date: | 2020-05-28 14:56:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZAgJn=gHTP3vDvF5UTrNv+h3R76dMoJuWfhJt4Oc=Q6A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:52 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> (BTW, adding an option for auto-rollback wouldn't change my opinion
> about that. Not all side-effects of a query can be rolled back. Thus,
> if there is an auto-rollback option, it mustn't be GUC-adjustable
> either.)
>
Yeah, I've worked myself around to that as well, this thread's proposal
would be to just make setting up rollback more obvious and easier for a
user of explain analyze - whose value at this point is wholly independent
of the GUC discussion.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-05-28 15:15:17 | Incorrect comment in be-secure-openssl.c |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-05-28 14:52:47 | Re: Explain Analyze (Rollback off) Suggestion |