On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Rahila Syed <rahilasye...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In keeping with current design of hooks instead of rejecting autocommit 'ON' >>> setting inside >>> a transaction,the value can be set to 'ON' with a psql_error displaying that >>> the value >>> will be effective when the current transaction has ended. > >> Hmm, that seems like a reasonable compromise. > > I dunno, implementing that seems like it will require some very fragile > behavior in the autocommit code, ie that even though the variable is "on" > we don't do anything until after reaching an out-of-transaction state. > It might work today but I'm afraid we'd break it in future.
Hmm, I don't think any logic change is being proposed, just a warning that it may not work the way you think. So I don't think it would be any more fragile than now. Am I missing something? > I think changing the hook API is a pretty reasonable thing to do here > (though I'd make it its own patch and then add the autocommit change > on top). When was the last time you actually wanted to set VERBOSITY > to "fubar"? I agree that'd be better but I don't know that we should expect Rahila to do that as a condition of getting a usability warning accepted. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers