"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would say that a GUC variable for such behavior as listed in the TODO
> is overzealous. We should either enforce it, or not. As we do not now,
> there is no reason imo to change it.
Not only is it overzealous, but the proposal to have one reflects a
failure to learn from history. GUC variables that change
transaction-boundary semantics are a bad idea, period: see autocommit.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
