Robert Haas wrote > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <
> bruce@ > > wrote: >> Well, ERROR is what LOCK returns, so if we change SET TRANSACTION to be >> WARNING, we should change LOCK too, so on backward-compatibility >> grounds, ERROR makes more sense. >> >> Personally, I am fine with changing them all to WARNING. > > I don't think it's worth breaking backward compatibility. I'm not > entirely sure what I would have decided here in a vacuum, but at this > point existing precedent seems determinative. Well, at this point we have already broken backward compatibility by releasing this. With Tom's thread necromancy I missed the fact this got released in 9.3 Now, given normal upgrade realities the people likely to have this bite them probably are a ways out from upgrading so I wouldn't expect to have seen many complaints yet - but at the same time I do not recall seeing any complaints yet (limited to -bugs and -general) The referenced patch: is released is documented is consistent with precedent established by similar codepaths causes an obvious error in what is considered broken code can be trivially corrected by a user willing and able to update their application I'd say leave this as-is and only re-evaluate the decision if complaints are brought forth. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Suggestion-Issue-warning-when-calling-SET-TRANSACTION-outside-transaction-block-tp5743139p5779170.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
