On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:24:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > David Johnston <pol...@yahoo.com> writes: > > Robert Haas wrote > >> 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 > > Uh, what? The commit I'm objecting to is certainly not in 9.3. > It's this one:
Right. > Author: Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> > Branch: master [a54141aeb] 2013-10-04 13:50:28 -0400 > > Issue error on SET outside transaction block in some cases > > Issue error for SET LOCAL/CONSTRAINTS/TRANSACTION outside a transaction > block, as they have no effect. > > Per suggestion from Morten Hustveit > > I agree that it's too late to reconsider the behavior of pre-existing > cases such as LOCK TABLE, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about > this one. OK, so I just posted a summary of what we have now, and a patch that switches them all to warning. Are you saying we should just switch the new ones to warnings? Seeing as these commands have always been useless, I don't see the big argument for backward compatibility myself. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
