On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:36 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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).
In that case, it can have one more advantage that all configuration setting can be done with one command and in future we might want to have option like BOTH where the command will take effect for memory as well as file. Can you think of any strong reason why not to have with Alter System Command? In any case SET PERSISTENT is fine. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
