Tom Lane-2 wrote
> David Johnston <

> polobo@

> > 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:
> Author: Bruce Momjian <

> bruce@

> >
> 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.

My bad, I was relaying an assertion without checking it myself.  I believe
my source meant 9.4/head and simply mis-typed 9.3 which I then copied.

David J.

View this message in context:
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to