Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, Tom and I are on opposite sides of this, I suppose. I > prefer ERROR for everything other than the top-level transaction > commands, and see no benefit from opting for a wishy-washy > warning.
+1 If the user issued a local command outside of a transaction there is an extremely high probability that they intended to either set session state or affect the next transaction. Either way, modifying the database with the wrong setting could lead to data corruption -- at least for some of these settings. IMO it would be foolish to insist on consistency with prior releases rather than on giving people the best shot at preventing, or at least promptly identifying the cause of, data corruption. Obviously, changing the level of these is not material for back- patching. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
