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] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + 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 http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
