Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 13:52 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "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.
> Nod. Let's get this TODO removed.

OK, removed.

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to