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: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Suggestion-Issue-warning-when-calling-SET-TRANSACTION-outside-transaction-block-tp5743139p5779205.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
