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                        |
  [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

Reply via email to