Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote: >> I completely agree with Karel. I think it is a bad idea to change the >> protocol for such a minor feature - i tend to call it overkill.
> I think autocommit is a good example for comparison. Indeed, it is an *excellent* example for comparison. The real problem with autocommit was that it changed the interface semantics without making that change sufficiently visible at all levels. If we try to pretend that RESET CONNECTION isn't a protocol change then we will silently break code that needs to know about it. Which is pretty much exactly what happened with autocommit. > Should we add something like SET > CONNECTION that would set the reset values for RESET CONNECTION? This is an even bigger compatibility-breaker, as now anyone who can issue SET CONNECTION can not only break code layers that were trying to track backend state, he can break code layers that thought they knew what RESET CONNECTION would accomplish. I definitely recommend against this idea. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly