On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Selena Deckelmann <sel...@chesnok.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Selena Deckelmann <sel...@chesnok.com> writes: >>> The check_temp_buffers() problem seems like a regression and blocks us >>> from upgrading to 9.2. The use case are functions that set >>> temp_buffers and occasionally are called in a series from a parent >>> session. The work around is... a lot of work. >> >> Uh ... how is that a regression? AFAIK it's been that way right along. > > We're running 9.0 - looks like it changed in 9.1, last revision to the > relevant line was 6/2011. The group decided not to upgrade to 9.1 last > year, but was going to just go directly to 9.2 in the next few weeks.
And, I was basing the regression comment on the documentation for temp_buffers: "The setting can be changed within individual sessions, but only before the first use of temporary tables within the session; subsequent attempts to change the value will have no effect on that session." This statement has been there since at least 8.1. A warning, and then not failing seems more appropriate than an error, given the documented behavior. -selena -- http://chesnok.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
