On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > [ I'm so far behind ... ] > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> Applied. Thank you for all your suggestions. > > I thought the suggestion had been to issue a *warning*. How did that > become an error? This patch seems likely to break applications that > may have just been harmlessly sloppy about when they were issuing > SETs and/or what flavor of SET they use. We don't for example throw > an error for START TRANSACTION with an open transaction or COMMIT or > ROLLBACK without one --- how can it possibly be argued that these > operations are more dangerous than those cases? > > I'd personally have voted for using NOTICE.
Well, LOCK TABLE throws an error, so it's not without precedent. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
