On Thursday 28 December 2006 15:44, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 13:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I would say that a GUC variable for such behavior as listed in the
> > > > TODO is overzealous. We should either enforce it, or not. As we do
> > > > not now, there is no reason imo to change it.
> > >
> > > Not only is it overzealous, but the proposal to have one reflects a
> > > failure to learn from history. GUC variables that change
> > > transaction-boundary semantics are a bad idea, period: see autocommit.
> >
> > Nod. Let's get this TODO removed.
>
> OK, removed.
I thought this was needed for spec compliance? If we have no plans to even
attempt to support it, istm that ought to be noted someplace.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
