Amit Kapila escribió: > The only point I can see against SET PERSISTENT is that other variants of > SET command can be used in > transaction blocks means for them ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT functionality works, > but for SET PERSISTENT, > it can't be done. > So to handle that might be we need to mention this point in User Manual, so > that users can be aware of this usage. > If that is okay, then I think SET PERSISTENT is good to go.
I think that's okay. There are other commands which have some forms that can run inside a transaction block and others not. CLUSTER is one example (maybe the only one? Not sure). -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
