Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Yes, rereading the config file would kill my idea --- but what API are > > we going to pass SET to applications? > > Passing the info up the client-side stack is an issue, yes, but it will > be so in any case. If it's not there in the protocol we haven't even > got a foothold to solve the problem ... > > > Sure, but how are we going to treat SET in the client? > > Not following your concern here. SET is what it always was.
The question is whether a client-side implementation of autocommit is going to allow SET to being a transaction when autocommit is off. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
